MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883680318 · doi:10.1089/neu.2018.5824

<b> <i>Retracted:</i> </b> Inhaled Nitric Oxide Protects Cerebral Autoregulation and Reduces Hippocampal Neuronal Cell Necrosis after Traumatic Brain Injury in Newborn and Juvenile Pigs

2018· article· en· W2883680318 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hugh Hekierski, Philip Pastor, Victor Prado Curvêllo, William M. Armstead

Post-publication record

NatureRetraction
ReasonAuthor Unresponsive;Concerns/Issues about Data;Concerns/Issues about Results and/or Conclusions;
Date4/29/2022 0:00
Flagged by OpenAlex?Yes

Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurotrauma · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryMedicineAnesthesiaCerebral autoregulationCerebral blood flowCerebral perfusion pressureAutoregulationHippocampal formationMean arterial pressureBlood pressureInternal medicineHeart rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dr. William Armstead, the corresponding author of the article entitled, “Inhaled Nitric Oxide Protects Cerebral Autoregulation and Reduces Hippocampal Neuronal Cell Necrosis after Traumatic Brain Injury in Newborn and Juvenile Pigs” (by Hugh Hekierski, Philip Pastor, Victor Curvello, and William M. Armstead; J Neurotrauma 2019;36(4):630–638; DOI: 10.1089/neu.2018.5824) has requested, via email, a full retraction of the published paper since “substantive questions have arisen regarding the findings, presentation and conclusions reported in the paper that could not be answered with available source data.” On three separate occasions, both the publisher and editor requested additional information detailing the specifics of the questions which were raised that invalidated the findings in the study, but did not receive a response from Dr. Armstead. Despite being unable to ascertain more unambiguous information, the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Neurotrauma agreed to Dr. Armstead's request for a retraction after receiving agreements from the article's coauthors. Notably, Dr. Armstead also requested the retraction of two additional articles published in Journal of Neurotrauma,1,2 making the same claim for all three articles. The two other articles are retracted separately.3,4 The editor and publisher of Journal of Neurotrauma is committed to preserving the accuracy of scientific literature. References 1. Armstead, W.M., Riley, J., and Vavilala, M.S. (2017). Sex and age differences in epinephrine mechanisms and outcomes after brain injury. J. Neurotrauma 34, 1666–1675. 2. Armstead, W.M., Riley, J., and Vavilala, M.S. (2016). Norepinephrine protects cerebral autoregulation and reduces hippocampal necrosis after traumatic brain injury via blockade of ERK MAPK and IL-6 in juvenile pigs. J. Neurotrauma 33, 1761–1767. 3. Retraction of: Sex and age differences in epinephrine mechanisms and outcomes after brain injury (DOI: 10.1089/neu.2016.4770). J. Neurotrauma 2022;39 [Epub ahead of print; DOI: 10.1089/neu.2016.4770.retract]. 4. Retraction of: Norepinephrine protects cerebral autoregulation and reduces hippocampal necrosis after traumatic brain injury via blockade of ERK MAPK and IL-6 in juvenile pigs (DOI: 10.1089/neu.2015.4290). J. Neurotrauma 2022;39 [Epub ahead of print; DOI: 10.1089/neu.2015.4290.retract].

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0110.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.036

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.252 · 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.

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

Citations20
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurotraumaSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207