How right is the righting reflex? The risk of false positives in neuroprotection studies using behavioral measures to certify forebrain ischemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The righting reflex (RR) as a behavioral index of incomplete ischemia during four-vessel occlusion (4VO) remains a common exclusion criterion. In the present study different drugs (aniracetam, ondansetron, and metyrapone) were administered to Wistar rats at a variety of doses prior to unanesthetized forebrain ischemia lasting 10 minutes forebrain ischemia in. Using the RR as an exclusion criterion, their effects on neuronal survival and functional recovery were investigated. Our observations revealed dose-related suppression of RR expression leading to a higher proportion of drug-treated rats categorized as having experienced successful ischemia compared to the vehicle-treated groups. If uncontrolled, this effect led to assessments of increased neuronal survival (in CA1 hippocampal subfield) or improved cognitive behavioral recovery in treated rats. These observations appeared to be related to failure in identifying rats subjected to incomplete forebrain ischemia producing minimal neuronal damage rather than protective effects associated to drug administration. These findings highlight the risk of falsely reporting treatment-related neuronal protection with the unanesthetized 4VO model in rodents.
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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".