Prolonged Hypothermia in Rat: A Safety Study Using Brain-Selective and Systemic Treatments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypothermia is an effective neuroprotectant for cardiac arrest and perinatal ischemic injury. Hypothermia also improves outcome after traumatic brain injury and stroke. Although the ideal treatment parameters (duration, delay, and depth) are not fully delineated, prolonged cooling is usually more effective than shorter periods. There is the concern that extended cooling may be hazardous to brain plasticity and cause damage. In order to evaluate this possibility, we assessed the effects of 3 days of systemic hypothermia (32°C) in rats subjected to a sham stroke surgery. There were no detrimental behavioral effects or signs of brain damage. As even longer cooling may be needed in some patients, we cooled (∼32°C) the right hemisphere of rats for 3 or 21 days. Physiological variables, functional outcome, and measures of cell injury were examined. Focal brain cooling for 21 days modestly decreased heart rate, blood pressure, and core temperature. However, focal hypothermia did not affect subsequent behavior (e.g., spontaneous limb usage), cell morphology (e.g., dendritic arborization, ultrastructure), or cause cell death. In conclusion, prolonged mild hypothermia did not harm the brain of normal animals. Further research is now needed to evaluate whether such treatments affect plasticity after brain injury.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".