Hemorrhage and Locomotor Deficits Induced by Pain Input after Spinal Cord Injury Are Partially Mediated by Changes in Hemodynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nociceptive input diminishes recovery and increases lesion area after a spinal cord injury (SCI). Recent work has linked these effects to the expansion of hemorrhage at the site of injury. The current article examines whether these adverse effects are linked to a pain-induced rise in blood pressure (BP) and/or flow. Male rats with a low-thoracic SCI were treated with noxious input (electrical stimulation [shock] or capsaicin) soon after injury. Locomotor recovery and BP were assessed throughout. Tissues were collected 3 h, 24 h, or 21 days later. Both electrical stimulation and capsaicin undermined locomotor function and increased the area of hemorrhage. Changes in BP/flow varied depending on type of noxious input, with only shock producing changes in BP. Providing behavioral control over the termination of noxious stimulation attenuated the rise in BP and hemorrhage. Pretreatment with the α-1 adrenergic receptor inverse agonist, prazosin, reduced the stimulation-induced rise in BP and hemorrhage. Prazosin also attenuated the adverse effect that noxious stimulation has on long-term recovery. Administration of the adrenergic agonist, norepinephrine 1 day after injury induced an increase in BP and disrupted locomotor function, but had little effect on hemorrhage. Further, inducing a rise in BP/flow using norepinephrine undermined long-term recovery and increased tissue loss. Mediational analyses suggest that the pain-induced rise in blood flow may foster hemorrhage after SCI. Increased BP appears to act through an independent process to adversely affect locomotor performance, tissue sparing, and long-term recovery.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".