Isoflurane anesthesia does not affect spinal cord neurovascular coupling: evidence from decerebrated rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neurological examination remains the primary clinical investigation in patients with spinal cord injury. However, neuroimaging methods such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) are promising tools for following functional changes in the course of injury, disease and rehabilitation. However, the relationship between neuronal activity and blood flow in the spinal cord on which fMRI relies has been largely overlooked. The objective of this study was to examine neurovascular coupling in the spinal cord of decerebrated rats during electrical stimulation of the sciatic nerve with and without isoflurane anesthesia (1.2%). Local field potentials (LFP) and spinal cord blood flow (SCBF) were recorded simultaneously in the lumbosacral enlargement. Isoflurane did not significantly alter LFP (p = 0.53) and SCBF (p = 0.57) amplitude. Accordingly, neurovascular coupling remained comparable with or without isoflurane anesthesia (p = 0.39). These results support the use of isoflurane in rodents to investigate nociceptive functions of the spinal cord using fMRI.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".