Attenuation of the Electrophysiological Function of the Corpus Callosum after Fluid Percussion Injury in the Rat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study describes a new method used to evaluate axonal physiological dysfunction following fluid percussion induced traumatic brain injury (TBI) that may facilitate the study of the mechanisms and novel therapeutic strategies of posttraumatic diffuse axonal injury (DAI). Stimulated compound action potentials (CAP) were recorded extracellularly in the corpus callosum of superfused brain slices at 3 h, and 1, 3, and 7 days following central fluid percussion injury and demonstrated a temporal pattern of functional deterioration. The maximal CAP amplitude (CAPA) covaried with the intensity of impact 1 day following sham, mild (1.0-1.2 atm), and moderate (1.8-2.0 atm) injury (p < 0.05; 1.11 +/- 0.10, 0.82 +/- 0.11, and 0.49 +/- 0.08 mV, respectively). The CAPA in sham animals were approximately 1.1 mV and did not vary with survival interval (3 h, and 1, 3, and 7 days); however, they were significantly decreased at each time point following moderate injury (p < 0.05; 0.51 +/- 0.11, 0.49 +/- 0.08, 0.46 +/- 0.10, and 0.75 +/- 0.13 mV, respectively). The CAPA at 7 days in the injured group were higher than at 3 h, and 1 and 3 days. H&E and amyloid precursor protein (APP) light microscopic analysis confirmed previously reported trauma-induced axonal injury in the corpus callosum seen after fluid percussion injury. Increased APP expression was confirmed using Western blotting showing significant accumulation at 1 day (IOD 913.0 +/- 252.7; n = 3; p = 0.05), 3 days (IOD 753.1 +/- 159.1; n = 3; p = 0.03), and at 7 days (IOD 1093.8 = 105.0; n = 3; p = 0.001) compared to shams (IOD 217.6 +/- 20.4; n = 3). Thus, we report the characterization of white matter axonal dysfunction in the corpus callosum following TBI. This novel method was easily applied, and the results were consistent and reproducible. The electrophysiological changes were sensitive to the early effects of impact intensity, as well as to delayed changes occurring several days following injury. They also indicated a greater degree of attenuation than predicted by APP expression changes alone.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".