MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1484143128 · doi:10.3171/2012.3.spine11970

Development of a large-animal model to measure dynamic cerebrospinal fluid pressure during spinal cord injury

2012· article· en· W1484143128 on OpenAlexaff
Claire F. Jones, Jae H.T. Lee, Brian K. Kwon, Peter A. Cripton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Spine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesVancouver Spine Surgery InstituteSpinal Cord Injury BCUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpinal cord injurySpinal cordCerebrospinal fluidAnesthesiaParaplegiaCerebrospinal fluid pressureAnimal modelIntracranial pressureAnatomyGlasgow Coma ScalePathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECT: Spinal cord injury (SCI) often results in considerable permanent neurological impairment, and unfortunately, the successful translation of effective treatments from laboratory models to human patients is lacking. This may be partially attributed to differences in anatomy, physiology, and scale between humans and rodent models. One potentially important difference between the rodent and human spinal cord is the presence of a significant CSF volume within the intrathecal space around the human cord. While the CSF may "cushion" the spinal cord, pressure waves within the CSF at the time of injury may contribute to the extent and severity of the primary injury. The objective of this study was to develop a model of contusion SCI in a miniature pig and establish the feasibility of measuring spinal CSF pressure during injury. METHODS: A custom weight-drop device was used to apply thoracic contusion SCI to 17 Yucatan miniature pigs. Impact load and velocity were measured. Using fiber optic pressure transducers implanted in the thecal sac, CSF pressures resulting from 2 injury severities (caused by 50-g and 100-g weights released from a 50-cm height) were measured. RESULTS: The median peak impact loads were 54 N and 132 N for the 50-g and 100-g injuries, respectively. At a nominal 100 mm from the injury epicenter, the authors observed a small negative pressure peak (median -4.6 mm Hg [cranial] and -5.8 mm Hg [caudal] for 50 g; -27.6 mm Hg [cranial] and -27.2 mm Hg [caudal] for 100 g) followed by a larger positive pressure peak (median 110.5 mm Hg [cranial] and 77.1 mm Hg [caudal] for 50 g; 88.4 mm Hg [cranial] and 67.2 mm Hg [caudal] for 100 g) relative to the preinjury pressure. There were no significant differences in peak pressure between the 2 injury severities or the caudal and cranial transducer locations. CONCLUSIONS: A new model of contusion SCI was developed to measure spinal CSF pressures during the SCI event. The results suggest that the Yucatan miniature pig is an appropriate model for studying CSF, spinal cord, and dura interactions during injury. With further development and characterization it may be an appropriate in vivo large-animal model of SCI to answer questions regarding pathological changes, therapeutic safety, or treatment efficacy, particularly where humanlike dimensions and physiology are important.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations37
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgery SpineSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207