Neuroprotection by nitrous oxide: Facts and evidence*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Preliminary studies have shown that nitrous oxide, like xenon, may possess potentially neuroprotective properties. However, because of its possible neurotoxic and proneurotoxic effects (obtained under particular conditions) and its bad reputation at anesthetic concentrations, no thorough investigations have been performed on the potentially neuroprotective properties of nitrous oxide. The aim of this study was to investigate the possible neuroprotective effects of nitrous oxide at nonanesthetic concentrations on different models of excitotoxic insult and brain ischemia. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Here, we show using multiple models of ex vivo and in vivo excitotoxic insults and brain ischemia that nitrous oxide, administered alone at nonanesthetic doses, offers global neuroprotection from reduction of neurotransmitter release induced by ischemia to reduction of subsequent cell injury. In vivo, in rats subjected to transient cerebral ischemia, nitrous oxide at 50 vol% offers full neuroprotection at both the histologic and neurologic outcome levels when administered up to 2 hrs, but not 3 hrs, after ischemia onset. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide experimental evidence that nitrous oxide, which is a cost-efficient and easily available gas, has potentially neuroprotective properties in rodents when given alone at nonanesthetic concentrations. Therefore, because there is a lot at stake for the affected patients and society--in terms of easy access to treatment, profound impact of brain damage, cost of treatment, and subsequent financial cost on society--we believe that further studies should investigate thoroughly the possible potential clinical interest of nitrous oxide for the treatment of ischemic stroke in terms of optimal indications, type of ischemic injury, duration and time points for treatment, and the optimal concentration of gas to be used in clinical circumstances.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".