Propofol Anesthesia Compared to Awake Reduces Infarct Size in Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Propofol has not been studied directly in animals subject to cerebral ischemia in the conscious state. Strokes are usually induced in animals while they are anesthetized, making it difficult to eliminate anesthetic interactions as a complicating factor. Therefore, to compare the neuroprotective effects of propofol to the unanesthetized state, experiments were performed using a model that induces a stroke in the conscious rat. METHODS: Cerebral ischemia was induced in awake Wistar rats by a local intracerebral injection of the potent vasoconstrictor endothelin. Four days before the strokes were induced, a guide cannula was implanted for the injection of endothelin. On the day of the experiment, endothelin (6.0 pmol in 3 microl) was injected into the striatum. Propofol (25 or 15 mg. kg-1. h-1) or intralipid (vehicle) were infused for 4 h starting immediately after the endothelin injection. In another series, the propofol infusion was begun 1 h after the endothelin injection and continued for 4 h. Three days later, the animals were killed, and the brains were sectioned and stained. RESULTS: The propofol group (25 mg. kg-1. h-1) had a significantly reduced infarct size (0.7 +/- 0.21 mm3, first 4 h; 0.27 +/- 0.07 mm3, started 1 h after initiation of infarct) compared with the intralipid controls (3.40 +/- 0.53 mm3). To exclude a direct interaction between propofol and endothelin, in thiobutabarbital anesthetized rats, endothelin-induced cerebral vasoconstriction was examined using videomicroscopy, with or without propofol. Propofol had no effect on the magnitude or time course of the endothelin-induced vasoconstriction. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that concurrent or delayed administration of propofol is neuroprotective.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".