An in vivo rabbit joint injury model to measure trauma-induced coagulopathy and the effect of timing of administration of ketotifen fumarate on posttraumatic joint contracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives: Using a rabbit in vivo joint injury model, the primary objective of the study was to determine if a relationship exists between earlier time to initiation of ketotifen fumarate (KF) treatment and posttraumatic joint contracture (PTJC) reduction. The secondary objective was to determine if a coagulation response could be detected with serial thrombelastography (TEG) analysis following acute trauma in this model. Methods: PTJC of the knee were created in 25 skeletally mature, New Zealand White rabbits. Five groups of 5 animals were studied: a control group that received twice daily subcutaneous injections of normal saline and 4 treatment groups that received twice daily subcutaneous injections of KF (0.5 mg/kg) starting immediately, 1-, 2-, and 4-weeks post-injury. After 8 weeks of immobilization, flexion contractures were measured biomechanically. Serial TEG analysis was performed on the control group animals pre-injury and weekly post-injury. Results: The average joint contracture in the Control Group (43.1° ± 16.2°) was higher than all KF treatment groups; however, the differences were not statistically significant. The average joint contracture was lowest in the 2-week post-injury treatment group (29.4° ± 12.1°), although not statistically significant compared to the other treatment groups. Serial TEG analysis demonstrated significantly higher mean maximal amplitude (maximal amplitude = 68.9 ± 1.7 mm; P < .001), alpha-angle (81.9° ± 0.9°; P < .001), and coagulation index (4.5 ± 0.3; P < .001) 1-week post-injury, which normalized to pre-injury values by 5-weeks post-injury. Conclusions: The use of the mast cell stabilizer KF within 2 weeks of injury demonstrated a nonsignificant trend towards reducing joint contracture in a rabbit in vivo model of PTJC. TEG and the in vivo rabbit joint injury model may be valuable in future preclinical studies of venous thromboembolism prevention and furthering our understanding of the pathophysiology of posttraumatic hypercoagulability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".