Vascular‐cognitive Impairment after Chronic Experimental High‐thoracic Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Cognitive impairment is present in 64% individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI), affecting their attention, memory, learning and studying abilities, which are essential for post‐injury rehabilitation and possible transition into community. Previous studies from our group have reported the presence of vascular‐cognitive impairment in SCI individuals. However, a direct link between SCI‐associated vascular dysfunction and cognitive deficits hasn't been established. Objective To designing a pre‐clinical model to investigate cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and cognitive function following chronic high‐thoracic SCI. Methods Twenty‐eight male Wistar rats were assigned to uninjured group (CON, n=14) and T3‐level spinal transection group (SCI, n=14). Fourteen weeks after injury, cognitive function and cerebral blood flow from both group were evaluated using novel object recognition test and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) respectively. Moreover, in vivo and in vitro physiological assessments, as well as histological assessment in cerebral vasculature were conducted. Results Our animal model demonstrates autonomic disreflexia (AD) event (41.860 mmHg increase in systolic blood pressure) induced by colorectal distension, clinically relevant to unstable blood pressure following SCI. We conclude that chronic high‐thoracic SCI leads to 1) short‐memory loss ( p =0.0225), 2) cerebral hypoperfusion (32% reduction in baseline cerebral blood flow, p =0.0277) and 3) cerebrovascular dysfunctions, including endothelial dysfunction associated with reduced endothelial TRPV 4 expression, and 70% increased collagen I deposition. Conclusion This study provides evidence that vascular‐cognitive impairment occurs at chronic stage of SCI and highlighting TRPV 4 as a potential therapeutic target to improve post‐injury cognitive and cerebrovascular health. Support or Funding Information Canadian Institute of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".