The Role of Excitotoxicity in Secondary Mechanisms of Spinal Cord Injury: A Review with an Emphasis on the Implications for White Matter Degeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following an initial impact after spinal cord injury (SCI), there is a cascade of downstream events termed 'secondary injury', which culminate in progressive degenerative events in the spinal cord. These secondary injury mechanisms include, but are not limited to, ischemia, inflammation, free radical-induced cell death, glutamate excitotoxicity, cytoskeletal degradation and induction of extrinsic and intrinsic apoptotic pathways. There is emerging evidence that glutamate excitotoxicity plays a key role not only in neuronal cell death but also in delayed posttraumatic spinal cord white matter degeneration. Importantly however, the differences in cellular composition and expression of specific types of glutamate receptors in grey versus white matter require a compartmentalized approach to understand the mechanisms of secondary injury after SCI. This review examines mechanisms of secondary white matter injury with particular emphasis on glutamate excitotoxicity and the potential link of this mechanism to apoptosis. Recent studies have provided new insights into the mechanisms of glutamate release and its potential targets, as well as the downstream pathways associated with glutamate receptor activation in specific types of cells. Evidence from molecular and functional expression of glutamatergic AMPA receptors in white matter glia (and possibly axons), the protective effects of AMPA/kainate antagonists in posttraumatic white matter axonal function, and the vulnerability of oligodendrocytes to excitotoxic cell death suggest that glutamate excitotoxicity is associated with oligodendrocyte apoptosis. The latter mechanism appears key to glutamatergic white matter degeneration after SCI and may represent an attractive therapeutic target.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".