MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7101438695 · doi:10.1186/s43045-025-00589-9

The effect of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator on cognitive functions of patients with first ischemic stroke

2025· article· en· W7101438695 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMiddle East Current Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHistory of Computing Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionTissue plasminogen activatorStroke (engine)Ischemic strokeMontreal Cognitive AssessmentRecombinant tissue plasminogen activatorBrain ischemiaIschaemic stroke

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Stroke is associated with significant comorbidities & cognitive impairment affects more than 50% of patients with ischemic stroke. Reperfusion therapy is considered the most effective therapy & has a significant positive impact on function & quality of life of stroke patients presented within 4.5 h from onset of symptoms. Aim of current study is to assess the cognitive functions among patients with first ischemic stroke who received recombinant tissue Plasminogen activator (t-PA) (r-TPA) in comparison with patients with first ischaemic stroke who didn’t receive rTPA. Patients & methods A comparative cross-sectional study was conducted among 2 groups of patients with first ischaemic stroke. Group A: included 51 patients who were presented before 4.5 h of onset of symptoms & received rTPA while group B included 51 patients who were not eligible to receive rTPA. Patients were evaluated for cognitive impairment using the Mini-Mental State Examination, Montreal Cognitive Assessment & Wisconsin Card sorting Test after 3 months of stroke for both groups. Results Three months after the intervention, Group A showed significantly better cognitive performance than Group B. Group A scored higher on the MMSE ( p < 0.001), particularly in orientation, registration, attention, calculation, & language ( p < 0.05), though both groups performed similarly in recall. On the MoCA, Group A also had higher total scores ( p < 0.001), especially in visuospatial skills, memory, attention, & executive function ( p < 0.05), with no significant difference in orientation & language. In the WCST, Group A made fewer errors & had better conceptual responses, while Group B showed more perseverative responses & errors & non-perseverative errors ( p < 0.001). In addition, MOCA, MMSE & WCST scores 3 months after intervention had significant moderate negative correlation with NIHSS scores. Conclusion Cognitive impairment is less reported among stroke patients managed with r-TPA suggesting a protective effect for r-TPA on cognitive function.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.357
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMiddle East Current PsychiatrySame topicHistory of Computing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207