MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1804983902 · doi:10.3171/2009.6.spine08915

Timing and duration of anti–α4β1 integrin treatment after spinal cord injury: effect on therapeutic efficacy

2009· article· en· W1804983902 on OpenAlexafffund
Jennifer C. Fleming, Feng Bao, Yuhua Chen, Eilis F. Hamilton, Laura E. González-Lara, Paula J. Foster, Lynne C. Weaver

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Spine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsSpinal Cord Injury OntarioWestern University
FundersIC Design Education CenterCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchBiogen
KeywordsMedicineSpinal cord injurySpinal cordAnesthesiaNeuropathic painInflammationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECT: After spinal cord injury (SCI) leukocytes infiltrate the injured cord, causing significant damage and further impairment of functional recovery. The leukocyte integrin alpha4beta1 is crucial for their entry. The authors previously demonstrated that an anti-alpha4 monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment attenuates leukocyte infiltration, improves motor and autonomic function, and reduces neuropathic pain when administered at 2 hours and 24 hours after SCI. METHODS: The authors conducted 2 preclinical studies: the first determined effects of treatment commencing at 6 hours, a clinically relevant time after injury, and the second examined effects of long-lasting treatment (28 days) on neurological recovery after SCI, as current clinically used anti-inflammatory monoclonal antibodies have such longevity. In the first study (timing study), rats were treated with anti-alpha4 or control mAb (intravenously) at 6 hours and 48 hours after moderate (35 g) thoracic compression SCI. Effects on intraspinal inflammation and oxidative injury were assessed at 3 and 7 days after SCI; motor function and pain were examined for 6 weeks. In the second study (duration study), anti-alpha4 mAb was administered starting 2 hours after SCI and subsequently every 3 days for 4 weeks (total of 8 doses), using a schedule of decreasing doses to resemble the pharmacodynamics of long-lasting antibodies used clinically. Motor function and pain were examined for 6 weeks. Lesions were assessed for tissue sparing and inflammation at 6 weeks by histological examination and MR imaging. RESULTS: Anti-alpha4 mAb treatment at 6 hours and 48 hours after SCI (timing study) significantly decreased neutrophil and monocyte/macrophage influx at 3 days by 36% and 20%, respectively, but had no effect by at 7 days after SCI. Antibody treatment significantly reduced intraspinal myeloperoxidase activity by 48% and lipid peroxidation by 27% at 3 days post-injury. The treatment did not improve locomotor function but reduced mechanical allodynia elicited from the trunk and hind paw by ~50% at 3-6 weeks after SCI. In contrast, long-term mAb treatment commencing at 2 hours after SCI (duration study) significantly improved locomotor function at 2-6 weeks after SCI, (mean BBB scores +/- SE: treated rats, 8.3 +/- 0.16; controls, 7.3 +/- 0.2 at 6 weeks). At 3-6 weeks, mAb treatment decreased mechanical allodynia elicited from the trunk and hind paw by ~55%. This recovery correlated with 30% more myelin-containing white matter in treated rats than controls at 6 weeks. The lesion cavity was smaller in the treated rats when assessed by both histological (-37%) and imaging (-50%) methods. The accumulation of ED1-immunoreactive microglia/macrophages at the lesion was similar in treated and control rats. CONCLUSIONS: Although delayed treatment reduced intraspinal inflammation and pain, motor function was not improved, revealing decreased efficacy at the more clinically feasibly treatment onset. Long-term anti-alpha4 mAb treatment starting 2 hours after SCI improved neurological outcomes, with tissue sparing near the lesion and no impairment of the late immune response to injury. These findings reveal no disadvantage of long-lasting immunosuppression by the treatment but show that efficacy depends upon very early delivery.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Citations27
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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