ReviewNeurological research and practice2026
FXI and FXII in experimental stroke and FXI in clinical stroke trials.
Review in Neurological research and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Targeting the contact activation system through Factor XI (FXI) or Factor XII (FXII) inhibition represents a major paradigm shift in antithrombotic therapy for ischemic stroke. Unlike traditional anticoagulants, contact pathway factors drive pathological thrombus propagation and thromboinflammation; crucially, while FXII plays a negligible role in physiological hemostasis, FXI contributes only secondarily, thereby substantially uncoupling antithrombotic efficacy from major bleeding risk. However, a notable disconnect exists between experimental models and clinical development. Preclinical stroke literature, primarily rodent middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) models, is overwhelmingly concentrated on FXII targeting, where FXII deficiency or blockade consistently reduces cerebral infarct volumes, preserves microvascular perfusion, and attenuates thromboinflammation, whereas experimental studies of direct FXI treatment remain sparse. Conversely, human clinical translation has focused largely on oral FXIa inhibitors, maintaining a favorable bleeding profile across indications but yielding mixed efficacy, ranging from neutral Phase II studies and the early termination of OCEANIC-AF to positive secondary stroke prevention data. Following positive OCEANIC-STROKE findings, asundexian (under FDA priority review as of September 2026) emerges as a prospective add-on to antiplatelet therapy for the secondary prevention of noncardioembolic stroke or high-risk TIA, particularly in nonlacunar or atherosclerotic populations. Reconciling preclinical FXII data with clinical FXIa trial outcomes provides a timely rationale to systematically review evidence across MCAO models and human stroke trials to delineate the distinct therapeutic potentials of FXI and FXII inhibition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42888464What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.