Brief Hyperthermia Does not Worsen Outcome after Striatal Hemorrhage in Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hyperthermia accelerates and increases ischemic brain damage. Owing to overlapping mechanisms of injury, many assume that hyperthermia also worsens outcome after intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). However, clinical data do not conclusively prove this, and there is only one animal study examining the impact of hyperthermia. In that study (MacLellan and Colbourne, 2005), several hyperthermia protocols were administered after collagenase-induced ICH in rats; none worsened injury. While the collagenase model is widely used, it differs in important ways from another common model - injecting autologous blood directly into the brain. Thus, we evaluated the impact of immediate hyperthermia (HYP, 39 °C for 3 hr) after a 100-µL infusion of blood into the striatum of rats. This treatment, which markedly increases ischemic damage, was compared to control rats kept normothermic (NOR, 37 °C). Three separate experiments were done to measure: 1) edema at 24 hr, 2) edema at 72 hr, and 3) behavioral impairment and lesion size out to 1 month post-ICH. The HYP treatment did not significantly affect edema at 24 hr, but surprisingly, it modestly reduced edema at 72 hr and partly improved behavioral outcome. However, there were no lasting effects of HYP on behavior (e.g., skilled reaching) or the volume of tissue lost (NOR: 14.0 mm(3) vs. HYP: 14.5 mm(3)). In summary, our findings do not support the common belief that hyperthermia worsens outcome after ICH. Additional research is needed to determine whether more severe or prolonged heating or fever and its cause (e.g., infection) affect morbidity and mortality after ICH.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".