Contribution of Brain Processes to Tissue Loss After Spinal Cord Injury: Does a Pain-Induced Rise in Blood Pressure Fuel Hemorrhage?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pain (nociceptive) input soon after spinal cord injury (SCI) expands the area of tissue loss (secondary injury) and impairs long-term recovery. Evidence suggests that nociceptive stimulation has this effect because it promotes acute hemorrhage. Disrupting communication with the brain blocks this effect. The current study examined whether rostral systems exacerbate tissue loss because pain input drives an increase in systolic blood pressure (BP) and flow that fuels blood infiltration. Rats received a moderate contusion injury to the lower thoracic (T12) spinal cord. Communication with rostral processes was disrupted by cutting the spinal cord 18 h later at T2. Noxious electrical stimulation (shock) applied to the tail (Experiment 1), or application of the irritant capsaicin to one hind paw (Experiment 2), increased hemorrhage at the site of injury. Shock, but not capsaicin, increased systolic BP and tail blood flow in sham-operated rats. Cutting communication with the brain blocked the shock-induced increase in systolic BP and tail blood flow. Experiment 3 examined the effect of artificially driving a rise in BP with norepinephrine (NE) in animals that received shock. Spinal transection attenuated hemorrhage in vehicle-treated rats. Treatment with NE drove a robust increase in BP and tail blood flow but did not increase the extent of hemorrhage. The results suggest pain input after SCI can engage rostral processes that fuel hemorrhage and drive sustained cardiovascular output. An increase in BP was not, however, necessary or sufficient to drive hemorrhage, implicating other brain-dependent processes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".