Cerebral Blood Volume and Blood Flow at Varying Arterial Carbon Dioxide Tension Levels in Rabbits During Propofol Anesthesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: There are little data on the effects of propofol on cerebral blood volume (CBV). We studied the effects of changes in PaCO(2) on CBV and cerebral blood flow (CBF) during propofol anesthesia in eight New Zealand white rabbits. We also investigated the effects of propofol over time on CBV and CBF during normocapnia (control group). At normocapnia, the mean (+/- SD) CBV and CBF values were 2.41 +/- 0.68 mL/100 g and 56 +/- 28 mL/100 g/min, respectively,. When PaCO(2) was reduced from 41 to 27 mm Hg, no significant change in either CBV or CBF was observed (P > 0.10). However, increasing PaCO(2) from 41 to 58 mm Hg resulted in a 30% increase in CBV (3.08 +/- 0.86 mL/100 g, P < 0.05) and a 91% increase in CBF (97 +/- 39 mL/100 g/min, P < 0.01). In the control group, there were no significant changes in CBV and CBF (P > 0.10) during 2 h of propofol anesthesia. These results indicate that, during propofol anesthesia, cerebrovascular reactivity of blood flow and blood volume is maintained during hypercapnia but is markedly diminished during hypocapnia. IMPLICATIONS: During propofol anesthesia in rabbits with normal brains, a reduction in the arterial carbon dioxide level may not always be accompanied by a reduction in brain blood flow and blood volume.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".