Action of locally administered NMDA and AMPA/kainate receptor antagonists in spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
NMDA or AMPA/kainate receptor antagonists have been shown to provide neuroprotection following in vitro spinal cord injury, but the mechanisms by which these agents improve behavioral recovery and protect axonal function remains unclear. We hypothesized that treatment of spinal cord injury with these drugs would attenuate glutamate excitatory transmission by blocking the effects of glutamate receptors at the injury site or would improve spinal cord blood flow. To test these hypotheses, we observed the effects of locally administered MK-801 (30 nmol) or NBQX (5 or 15 nmol) into the injured spinal cord on axonal conduction and post-traumatic ischemia of the cord. The outcome measures were multimodality evoked potentials and blood flow in an acute compression injury model in rats. We found that locally administered MK-801 or NBQX 15 min after spinal cord injury attenuated the amplitude, delayed the latency of sensory evoked potentials and increased the sensory conduction time across the injury site, but did not improve blood flow during the 4-h period of observation. These results demonstrate that the NMDA and non-NMDA receptor antagonists produced a blockade of glutamate excitatory transmission in the afferent pathways at the injury site. It is suggested that the neuroprotection provided by these agents following spinal cord injury is mediated through blockade of glutamate ionotropic receptors in the injured spinal cord, but is not related to improvement of SCBF.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".