Neuroprotective agents ineffective in mitigating autonomic dysreflexia following experimental spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Loss of supraspinal cardiovascular control and secondary damage following spinal cord injury (SCI) lead to cardiovascular dysfunction, where autonomic dysreflexia (AD), triggered by stimuli below the injury, can cause uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) surges, posing severe health risks such as stroke and seizures. While anti-inflammatory neuroprotective agents have been studied for motor recovery, their impact on cardiovascular function remains under investigated. The objective was to assess the efficacy of four clinically approved neuroprotective agents in promoting cardiovascular recovery following SCI. METHODS: Male Wistar rats received contusion at the third thoracic spinal segment (T3). Fluoxetine, Glyburide, Valproic acid, and Indomethacin were first administered at 1 h or 6 h post-SCI, and every 12 h for two weeks thereafter. Four weeks following SCI, hemodynamics were measured at rest and during colorectal distension. Locomotor function was assessed prior to SCI and weekly for four weeks after SCI, using the Basso-Beattie-Bresnahan (BBB) locomotor scale. Quantitative comparisons of lesion area were performed. RESULTS: Contrary to the published literature, Indomethacin and Valproic acid resulted in high morbidity and mortality rates 60 % and 40 % respectively) within 2-3 days of administration. Fluoxetine, and Glyburide were well-tolerated. There were no differences in change in systolic BP with colorectal distension compared to control i.e., all experimental groups experienced severe episodes of AD [F(6, 67) = 0.94, p = 0.47]. There was no significant difference in BBB scores in any experimental group compared to control [F(18, 252) = 0.3, p = 0.99]. No between-group differences were observed in tissue sparing at the lesion epicentre [F(6, 422) = 6.98, p = 0.29]. DISCUSSION: Despite promising beneficial effect reported in previous studies, none of the drugs demonstrated improvement in cardiovascular or motor function. Indomethacin and Valproic acid exhibited unexpected high mortality at doses deemed safe in the literature. This emphasizes the necessity for reproducibility studies in pre-clinical research and underscores the importance of publishing null findings to guide future investigations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".