MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213427679 · doi:10.1007/s12028-021-01429-4

Questioning Glutamate Excitotoxicity in Acute Brain Damage: The Importance of Spreading Depolarization

2022· article· en· W4213427679 on OpenAlexaff
R. David Andrew, Eszter Farkas, Jed A. Hartings, K. C. Brennan, Óscar Herreras, Michael Müller, Sergei A. Kirov, Cenk Ayata, Nikita Ollen‐Bittle, Clemens Reiffurth, Omer Revah, R. Meldrum Robertson, Ken Dawson‐Scully, Ghanim Ullah, Jens P. Dreier

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurocritical Care · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityQueen's University
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsExcitotoxicityGlutamate receptorNeuroscienceNeurologyDepolarizationMedicineTraumatic brain injuryNeuroprotectionIschemiaStroke (engine)Brain damageAnesthesiaPsychologyInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Within 2 min of severe ischemia, spreading depolarization (SD) propagates like a wave through compromised gray matter of the higher brain. More SDs arise over hours in adjacent tissue, expanding the neuronal damage. This period represents a therapeutic window to inhibit SD and so reduce impending tissue injury. Yet most neuroscientists assume that the course of early brain injury can be explained by glutamate excitotoxicity, the concept that immediate glutamate release promotes early and downstream brain injury. There are many problems with glutamate release being the unseen culprit, the most practical being that the concept has yielded zero therapeutics over the past 30 years. But the basic science is also flawed, arising from dubious foundational observations beginning in the 1950s METHODS: Literature pertaining to excitotoxicity and to SD over the past 60 years is critiqued. RESULTS: Excitotoxicity theory centers on the immediate and excessive release of glutamate with resulting neuronal hyperexcitation. This instigates poststroke cascades with subsequent secondary neuronal injury. By contrast, SD theory argues that although SD evokes some brief glutamate release, acute neuronal damage and the subsequent cascade of injury to neurons are elicited by the metabolic stress of SD, not by excessive glutamate release. The challenge we present here is to find new clinical targets based on more informed basic science. This is motivated by the continuing failure by neuroscientists and by industry to develop drugs that can reduce brain injury following ischemic stroke, traumatic brain injury, or sudden cardiac arrest. One important step is to recognize that SD plays a central role in promoting early neuronal damage. We argue that uncovering the molecular biology of SD initiation and propagation is essential because ischemic neurons are usually not acutely injured unless SD propagates through them. The role of glutamate excitotoxicity theory and how it has shaped SD research is then addressed, followed by a critique of its fading relevance to the study of brain injury. CONCLUSIONS: Spreading depolarizations better account for the acute neuronal injury arising from brain ischemia than does the early and excessive release of glutamate.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations53
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurocritical CareSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207