Induction of ischemic stroke in awake freely moving mice reveals that isoflurane anesthesia can mask the benefits of a neuroprotection therapy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anesthetics such as isoflurane are commonly used to sedate experimental animals during the induction of stroke. Since these agents are known to modulate synaptic excitability, inflammation and blood flow, they could hinder the development and discovery of new neuroprotection therapies. To address this issue, we developed a protocol for inducing photothrombotic occlusion of cerebral vessels in fully conscious mice and tested two potential neuroprotectant drugs (a GluN2B or α4β2 nicotinic receptor antagonist). Our data show in vehicle treated mice that just 20 min of exposure to isoflurane during stroke induction can significantly reduce ischemic cortical damage relative to mice that were awake during stroke. When comparing potential stroke therapies, none provided any level of neuroprotection if the stroke was induced with anesthesia. However, if mice were fully conscious during stroke, the α4β2 nicotinic receptor antagonist reduced ischemic damage by 23% relative to vehicle treated controls, whereas the GluN2B antagonist had no significant effect. These results suggest that isoflurane anesthesia can occlude the benefits of certain stroke treatments and warrant caution when using anesthetics for pre-clinical testing of neuroprotective agents.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it