Intracranial pressure measured in freely moving rats for days after intracerebral hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In some patients, intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) causes life-threatening elevations in intracranial pressure (ICP) arising from mass effect of the hematoma and edema. Accordingly, edema is a common endpoint to gauge treatment efficacy in rodent ICH models. Despite widespread reliance on edema, its relationship with ICP and cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) is unknown. Blood pressure (BP) and ICP were measured by telemetry devices in rats after collagenase ("severe" - 0.3U, and "moderate" - 0.15U doses) or blood infusion (100μL) into striatum (vs. saline infused shams). We compared epidural and intraparenchymal ICP readings (collagenase), evaluated CPP (collagenase), and compared models. Moderate (9.46mmHg±4.72 SD, 3day average) and severe collagenase ICHs (10.79±3.50) significantly increased ICP versus shams (4.02±2.09), whereas blood infusion did not (5.37±0.55). The two monitoring locations gave similar readings after severe collagenase ICH. Increased ICP reduced CPP by ~7.5mmHg for days after the larger collagenase infusion. CPP averaged from 103-112mmHg in shams. Edema occurred in all ICH models and predicted ICP. However, ICP and CPP were only modestly changed even after severe ICH and edema. Thus, small changes in edema typically reported in the literature, which often use smaller bleeds than presently used, likely minimally affects ICP and CPP. Further research into the face validity of these models, endpoints, and their ability to evaluate therapeutics is needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".