Incomplete Assessment of Experimental Cytoprotectants in Rodent Ischemia Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inadequate preclinical testing (e.g., rodent studies) has been partly blamed for the failure of many cytoprotectants to effectively treat stroke in humans. For example, some drugs went to clinical trial without rigorous functional and histological assessment over long survival times. In this study, we characterized recent experimental practices in rodent cytoprotection experiments to determine whether the limitations of early studies have been rectified. METHODS: We identified 138 rodent cytoprotection studies published in several leading journals (Journal of Neuroscience, Stroke, Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism and Experimental Neurology) for 2000-2002 and compared these to those published in 1990. From each study we determined the ischemia model, age and sex of the animal, the histological and functional endpoints used, and the methodology used to assess intra- and postischemic temperature. RESULTS: Ninety-eight percent of recent studies used young adult rodents and most used males. Most studies (60%) did not assess functional outcome and survival times were often < or = 48 hr (66%) for focal ischemia and < or = 7 days (80%) for global ischemia. Over 60% of the experiments relied solely upon rectal temperature during ischemia and only 32.6% of ischemia studies measured temperature after surgery. The 1990 data were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Many investigators ignore the need to assess long-term functional and histological outcome and do not accurately represent clinical conditions of ischemia (e.g., use of aged animals). In addition, intra- and postischemic temperature measurement and control is frequently neglected or inadequately performed. Further clinical failures are likely.
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 | 0.098 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".