MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Ampakines induce a persistent increase in phrenic motor output in rats with cervical spinal cord injury

2013· article· en· W335159901 on OpenAlexaff
Milap S. Sandhu, Mai K. ElMallah, Michael A. Lane, Paul J. Reier, John J. Greer, David D. Fuller

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhrenic nerveMedicineSpinal cordSpinal cord injuryAnesthesiaDiaphragm (acoustics)AMPA receptorRespiratory systemCordGlutamatergicGlutamate receptorReceptorInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) typically interrupts descending synaptic inputs to phrenic motoneurons resulting in diaphragm paralysis and respiratory impairment. The primary bulbospinal excitatory inputs to phrenic motoneurons are glutamatergic with AMPA receptors playing a prominent role. Ampakines are a group of compounds that can enhance the function of AMPA receptors, and prior work demonstrates that these compounds can increase respiratory output during conditions associated with blunted respiratory drive. Accordingly, in ongoing studies we are testing the hypothesis that intravenous delivery of an ampakine, CX717, will trigger increases in inspiratory phrenic motor output in rats with chronic cervical contusive SCI. Bilateral phrenic nerve activity was recorded in rats that received cervical (C3) hemicontusion of the spinal cord 8 wks prior. A single dose of CX717 (30mg/kg) triggered a modest increase in phrenic inspiratory burst amplitude ipsilateral but not contralateral to the contusion injury. However, repeated doses (3 × 10mg/kg at 5min intervals) triggered a substantial and persistent increase (lasting at least 60mins) in the inspiratory burst amplitude recorded in both phrenic nerves. These results demonstrate ampakines can increase phrenic motor output after cervical SCI and may provide a new means of enhancing respiratory function after SCI. Support: Craig H. Neilsen Foundation #220521 (MSS), Parker B. Francis Fellowship (MKE), 1R01NS080180–01A1 (DDF), NIH1R21HL104294–01 (DDF)

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 score0.008

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 integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep→French-language works237,207→