MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317727443 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e31826ba7cd

The Pressure Distribution of Cerebrospinal Fluid Responds to Residual Compression and Decompression in an Animal Model of Acute Spinal Cord Injury

2012· article· en· W2317727443 on OpenAlexafffund
Claire F. Jones, Robyn Newell, Jae H.T. Lee, Peter A. Cripton, Brian K. Kwon

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic Disease and Treatment Approaches
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSpinal Cord Injury BCInternational Collaboration On Repair Discoveries
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineDecompressionCerebrospinal fluid pressureAnesthesiaSubarachnoid spaceLumbarCerebrospinal fluidIntracranial pressureSpinal cord injurySurgerySpinal cordEpidural spaceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: In vivo large animal (pig) model study of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pressures after acute experimental spinal cord injury (SCI). OBJECTIVE: To determine how the CSF pressure (CSFP) and CSF pulse pressure amplitude (CSFPPA) cranial and caudal to the injury site change after an acute SCI with subsequent thecal occlusion and decompression. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lowering intrathecal pressure via CSF drainage is currently instituted to prevent ischemia-induced SCI during thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm surgery and was recently investigated as a potential intervention for acute traumatic SCI. However, in SCI patients, persistent extradural compression commonly occludes the subarachnoid space. This may generate a CSFP differential across the injury site, which cannot be appreciated with lumbar catheter pressure measurements. METHODS: Anesthetized pigs were subjected to an acute contusive SCI at T11 and 8 hours of sustained compression (n = 12), or sham surgery (n = 2). CSFP was measured cranial and caudal to the injury site, using miniature pressure transducers, during compression and for 6 hours after decompression. RESULTS: The cranial-caudal CSFP differential increased (mean, 0.39 mm Hg/h), predominantly due to increased cranial pressure. On decompression, cranial CSFP decreased (mean, -1.16 mm Hg) and caudal CSFP increased (mean, 0.65 mm Hg). The CSFP differential did not change significantly after decompression. Cranial CSFPPA was greater than caudal CSFPPA, but this differential did not change during compression. On decompression, the caudal CSFPPA increased in some but not all animals. CONCLUSION: Although extradural compression exists at the site of injury, lumbar CSFP may not accurately indicate CSFP cranial to the injury. Decompression may provide immediate, though perhaps partial, resolution of the pressure differential. CSFPPA was not a consistent indicator of decompression in this animal model. These findings may have implications for the design of future clinical protocols in which CSFP is monitored after acute SCI.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicAortic Disease and Treatment ApproachesFrench-language works237,207