Eubaric hyperoxemia and experimental cerebral infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We explore three questions concerning arterial hyperoxygenation and focal ischemia. (1) Does greater benefit accrue with higher levels of arterial hyperoxemia? (2) Is the net effect of continuous (intraischemic plus postischemic) oxygen therapy toxic, or beneficial to middle cerebral artery infarction? (3) In view of free radical theories of reperfusion injury, does hyperoxia isolated to the reperfusion period damage tissue? Rats subjected to transient, focal, normothermic, normoglycemic ischemia were assessed at 2 weeks' survival. Arterial hyperoxygenation from 98.9 +/- 4.0 to 312.2 +/- 48.4mm Hg during ischemia improved (p < 0.05) neurological function, as did isolated reperfusion hyperoxemia, but treatment with continuous hyperoxemia both during and after ischemia yielded greatest benefit (p < 0.001). Cortical infarcts constituted 6.5 +/- 1.8% of the hemisphere at normoxia, but 2.3 +/- 0.9% at hyperoxic levels (p < 0.01). Hyperoxia isolated to the reperfusion period also reduced cortical necrosis, from 6.5% to 2.7 +/- 1.2%. However, continuous intraischemic and reperfusion hyperoxemia led to only 0.2 +/- 0.1% cortical necrosis (p = 0.0005). Increasing the degree of hyperoxemia did not augment the benefit. We conclude that (1) eubaric hyperoxemia improves neurological and neuropathological outcome, (2) continuous oxygen therapy offers the greatest benefit, and (3) reperfusion hyperoxemia is beneficial. The findings should allay clinical concerns regarding oxygen-induced reperfusion injury, and, by obviating hyperbaric chambers, encourage clinical trials studying arterial hyperoxemia in treating stroke.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".