No Benefit of 3% Hypertonic Saline Following Experimental Intracerebral Hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a stroke subtype with a high mortality rate (~ 40%). After ICH, the mass effect of the hematoma and edema contribute to raised intracranial pressure (ICP) and poor outcome. Endogenous compensatory mechanisms that blunt ICP elevations include redirection of venous blood and cerebrospinal fluid, along with brain tissue compliance (e.g., decreased cell volume, increased cell density); however, these limited reserves can be exhausted after severe stroke, resulting in decompensated ICP that requires careful clinical management. Management strategies can include administration of hypertonic saline (HTS), an osmotic agent that putatively attenuates edema, and thereby ICP elevations. Evidence regarding the efficacy of HTS treatment following ICH remains limited. In this study, adult male rats were given a collagenase-induced striatal ICH and a bolus of either 3% HTS or 0.9% saline vehicle at 2- and 14-hours post-stroke onset. Neurological deficits, edema, ipsilateral cell volume and density (in areas S1 and CA1), and contralateral CA1 ultrastructural morphology were assessed 24 h post-ICH. Animals had large bleeds (median 108.2 µL), extensive edema (median 83.9% brain water content in ipsilateral striatum), and evident behavioural deficits (median 5.4 neurological deficit scale score). However, HTS did not affect edema (p ≥ 0.4797), behaviour (p = 0.6479), cell volume (p ≥ 0.1079), or cell density (p ≥ 0.0983). Qualitative ultrastructural assessment of contralateral area CA1 suggested that HTS administration was associated with paradoxical cellular swelling in ICH animals. Overall, there was no benefit with administering 3% HTS after ICH.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".