MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403416368 · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2024.10.006

Deep brain stimulation mitigates memory deficits in a rodent model of traumatic brain injury

2024· article· en· W4403416368 on OpenAlexafffund
Thallita Kelly Rabelo, Ana Carolina Pinheiro Campos, Thiago Henrique Almeida Souza, Faiza Mahmud, Miloš R. Popović, Luciene Covolan, Victor Hugo Cardoso Betta, Nir Lipsman, Mustansir Diwan, Clement Hamani

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain stimulation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryRodent modelNeuroscienceBrain stimulationStimulationPsychologyDeep brain stimulationMedicineInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major life-threatening event. In addition to neurological deficits, it can lead to long-term impairments in attention and memory. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an established therapy for movement disorders that has been recently investigated for memory improvement in various disorders. In models of TBI, stimulation delivered to different brain targets has been administered to rodents long after the injury with the objective of treating motor deficits, coordination and memory impairment. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that DBS administered soon after TBI may prevent the development of memory deficits and exert neuroprotective effects. METHODS: Male rats were implanted with DBS electrodes in the anterior nucleus of the thalamus (ANT) one week prior to lateral fluid percussion injury (FPI). Immediately after TBI, animals received active or sham stimulation for 6 h. Four days later, they were assessed in a novel object/novel location recognition test (NOR/NLR) and a Barnes maze paradigm. After the experiments, hippocampal cells were counted. Separate groups of animals were sacrificed at different timepoints after TBI to measure cytokines and brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF). In a second set of experiments, TBI-exposed animals receiving active or sham stimulation were injected with the tropomyosin receptor kinase B (TrkB) antagonist ANA-12, followed by behavioural testing. RESULTS: Rats exposed to TBI given DBS had an improvement in several variables of the Barnes maze, but no significant improvements in NOR/NLR compared to Sham DBS TBI animals or non-implanted controls. Animals receiving stimulation had a significant increase in BDNF levels, as well as in hippocampal cell counts in the hilus, CA3 and CA1 regions. DBS failed to normalize the increased levels of TNFα and the proinflammatory cytokine IL1β in the perilesional cortex and the hippocampus of the TBI-exposed animals. Pharmacological experiments revealed that ANA-12 administered alongside DBS did not counter the memory improvement observed in ANT stimulated animals. CONCLUSIONS: DBS delivered immediately after TBI mitigated memory deficits, increased the expression of BDNF and the number of hippocampal cells in rats. Mechanisms for these effects were not related to an anti-inflammatory effect or mediated via TrkB receptors.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain stimulationSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207