Anesthetics Interfere With the Polarization of Developing Cortical Neurons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous studies from the clinical and preclinical literature indicate that general anesthetic agents have toxic effects on the developing brain, but the mechanism of this toxicity is still unknown. Previous studies have focused on the effects of anesthetics on cell survival, dendrite elaboration, and synapse formation, but little attention has been paid to possible effects of anesthetics on the developing axon. Using dissociated mouse cortical neurons in culture, we found that isoflurane delays the acquisition of neuronal polarity by interfering with axon specification. The magnitude of this effect is dependent on isoflurane concentration and exposure time over clinically relevant ranges, and it is neither a precursor to nor the result of neuronal cell death. Propofol also seems to interfere with the acquisition of neuronal polarity, but the mechanism does not require activity at GABAA receptors. Rather, the delay in axon specification likely results from a slowing of the extension of prepolarized neurites. The effect is not unique to isoflurane as propofol also seems to interfere with the acquisition of neuronal polarity. These findings demonstrate that anesthetics may interfere with brain development through effects on axon growth and specification, thus introducing a new potential target in the search for mechanisms of pediatric anesthetic neurotoxicity.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".