MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Free Radicals, Antioxidants, and Neurologic Injury: Possible Relationship to Cerebral Protection by Anesthetics

2002· review· en· W2082372926 on OpenAlexaff
John X. Wilson, Adrian W. Gelb

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAnesthesia and Neurotoxicity Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReactive oxygen speciesOxidative stressGlutamate receptorRadicalPharmacologyLipid peroxidationAntioxidantGlutamatergicFree-radical theory of agingAnesthesiaOxidative phosphorylationBiochemistryReceptorChemistryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oxygen-centered free radicals cause brain injury associated with trauma and stroke. These reactive oxygen species may be detoxified by endogenous antioxidants, but cell death occurs after antioxidants become depleted. General anesthetics penetrate into brain parenchyma, where they may abrogate oxidative injury to neurons by several mechanisms that prevent the initiation of free radical chain reactions or terminate the propagation of highly reactive radicals. First, general anesthetics may inhibit free radical generation because these drugs slow cerebral utilization of oxygen and glucose, inhibit oxidative metabolism in neutrophils, and prevent redox changes in hemoglobin. Second, antioxidant anesthetics, such as thiopental and propofol, directly scavenge reactive oxygen species and inhibit lipid peroxidation. Finally, anesthetics may prevent the elevation of extracellular glutamate concentration and inhibit the activation of excitatory glutamatergic receptors that augment oxidative stress after ischemia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.118
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations123
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgical AnesthesiologySame topicAnesthesia and Neurotoxicity ResearchFrench-language works237,207