Neuroprotective Effects of Hypothermia After Spinal Cord Injury in Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: An experimental comparative study on moderate epidural hypothermia (MEH) versus moderate systemic hypothermia (MSH) after spinal cord injury (SCI). OBJECTIVE: To compare neuroprotective effects of hypothermia between MEH and MSH after SCI in rats. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Experimental MEH or MSH has been attempted for neuroprotection after ischemic or traumatic SCI. However, there is no comparative study on neuroprotective effect of MEH and MSH after SCI. If hypothermia is to be considered as 1 modality for treating SCI, further studies on the advantages and disadvantages of hypothermia will be mandatory. METHODS: A spinal cord contusion was produced in all 32 rats, and these rats were randomly divided into 4 groups-8 rats in each group: (1) the control group (spinal cord contusion only), (2) the methylprednisolone group, (3) the MEH group (28°C for 48 hr), and (4) the MSH group (32°C for 48 hr). The functional recovery was assessed using Basso, Beattie, Bresnahan scale and antiapoptotic and anti-inflammatory effects were assessed. RESULTS: The Basso, Beattie, Bresnahan scale scores in both the hypothermia groups were significantly higher than that in the control group at 6 weeks. The numbers of terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labeling-positive cells and OX-42 positive cells were significantly lower in both the MEH and MSH groups than that in the control group. The p38 mitogen-activated protein kinases expression of the treated groups was significantly lower than that of the control group. The expression of caspase-8 and caspase-9 significantly decreased in the treated groups compared with that of the control group. However, in terms of caspase-3, only the MSH group has shown to be significantly lower than that of the control group. CONCLUSION: This study presented that both systemic and epidural hypothermia demonstrated neuroprotective effects after SCI. Systemic hypothermia showed more neuroprotective effect by antiapoptotic and anti-inflammatory effects.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".