Rodent Models of Intracerebral Hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The collagenase and whole blood intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) models are widely used to identify mechanisms of injury and to evaluate treatments. Despite preclinical successes, to date, no treatment tested in phase III clinical trials has benefited ICH patients. These failures call into question the predictive value of current ICH models. By highlighting differences between these common rodent models of ICH, we sought to help investigators choose the more appropriate model for their study and to encourage the use of both whenever possible. For instance, we previously reported substantial differences in the bleeding profile, progression of cell death, and functional outcome between these models. These and other differences influence the efficacy and mechanisms of action of various treatment modalities. Thus, in this review, we also summarize neuroprotective and rehabilitation findings in each model. We conclude that differences between ICH models along with our current inability to identify the more clinically predictive model necessitate that preclinical assessments should normally be done in both. Such an approach, coupled with better assessment practices, will likely improve chances of future clinical success.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".