Propofol Neuroprotection in Cerebral Ischemia and Its Effects on Low-molecular-weight Antioxidants and Skilled Motor Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Propofol is neuroprotective when administered immediately after stroke. The therapeutic window, duration of administration, and antioxidant mechanisms of propofol in neuroprotection are not known. The effects of propofol after stroke were examined in the conscious animal. The authors have previously shown that light propofol anesthesia (25 mg x kg(-1) x h(-1)) for a period of 4 h, even if delayed 1 h after the onset of ischemia, decreases infarct volume 3 days after the stroke. METHODS: Cerebral ischemia was induced in awake Wistar rats by a local intracerebral injection of the potent vasoconstrictor, endothelin (6 pmol in 3 microl) into the striatum. Propofol treatment after ischemia was delayed up to 4 h, and the infusion period shortened from 4 h to 1 h. Infarct volume was assessed 3 or 21 days after the stroke. Neurologic outcome was evaluated on days 14-21 after ischemia. Tissue ascorbate and glutathione concentrations were evaluated at 4 h and 3 days after ischemia. RESULTS: Infarct volumes were reduced 3 days after ischemia when propofol treatment (25 mg x kg(-1) x h(-1)) was delayed for 2 h (0.5+/-0.3 mm3) but not 4 h (2.0+/-0.9 mm3), compared with intralipid controls (2.4 +/- 0.7 mm3). The propofol infusion period of 3 h but not 1 h reduced infarct volume. Propofol treatment did not reduce infarct volume 21 days after the stroke, although motor function improvements (Montoya staircase test) were observed 14-21 days after the stroke. Propofol neuroprotection was independent of tissue ascorbate and glutathione concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent or delayed administration of propofol is neuroprotective 3 days after ischemia. Although there were no differences in infarct volume 21 days after ischemia, propofol-treated animals had functional improvements at this time.
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".