The effect of remote ischemic conditioning on clinical endpoints and treatment adherence in patients with acute ischemic stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Remote Ischemic Conditioning (RIC) is a novel therapy that potentially activates protective pathways in the ischemic brain. Here, we present the clinical endpoints, compliance, and patient-reported outcome measures from a randomized sham-controlled trial investigating the effect of RIC on the rheo-erythrocrine function of red blood cells in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Patients were randomly assigned to RIC or sham twice daily for seven days. RIC or sham treatment consisted of five cycles, each cycle with five minutes of cuff inflation and five minutes of deflation on one upper extremity (total treatment time 50 minutes). The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and National Institute of Health Stroke Scale score (NIHSS) were obtained at baseline and after seven days. A total of 30 patients with AIS were included, and of these, 12 out of 15 patients assigned to RIC and 14 of 15 patients assigned to Sham completed the study. In the RIC group, the median (IQR) age was 67 years (52, 73) compared to 60 years (58, 72) in the sham group. We found no evidence of an association between RIC and improvement in the 7-day neurological outcome: NIHSS, -0.31 (-1.36-0.68), p = 0.51, and MoCA 1.03 (-1.26-3.32) = 0.38. All 12 patients (100%) in the RIC group and 7 (50%) in the sham group correctly identified which treatment they had received. The treatment compliance was high, and the majority of patients were willing to continue the treatment once daily for one year. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04266639 (registered 2020-02-12).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".