MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2794970224

Early Pregabalin Treatment Suppresses Autonomic Dysreflexia Following Spinal Cord Injury in Rats

2013· article· en· W2794970224 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mike Smyth

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomic dysreflexiaSpinal cord injuryPregabalinMedicineAnesthesiaSpinal cordPhysical medicine and rehabilitation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following spinal cord injury (SCI), up to 70% of patients develop a condition known as autonomic dysreflexia (AD). This study investigates the use of Pregabalin as a preemptive treatment to mitigate the development of AD following SCI in an animal model. Saline-treated and dPGB rats (first Pregabalin treatment 7 days post-SCI) demonstrated typical signs of AD, with mean arterial pressure (MAP) increases of 23.5% and 27.4% respectively, following colon distension. In contrast, iPGB animals (first Pregabalin treatment 1 hour post-SCI) had MAP increases of 14.6%; significantly lower than saline-treated animals. Additionally, iPGB animals had significantly lower urine volumes than saline-treated animals on days 9 and 10 post-SCI, indicating a more rapid return of spontaneous bladder voiding. It was concluded that only treatment with Pregabalin immediately following SCI can alleviate large increases in blood pressure that accompany AD episodes. Immunostaining for substance P revealed a significantly higher density in both the dorsal horn and central autonomic area in iPGB animals when compared to saline-treated and uninjured animals, indicating a possible mechanism of sympathetic inhibition following iPGB treatment.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada)→Same topicSpinal Cord Injury Research→French-language works237,207→