Influence of Systemic Arterial Hypertension on Memory and Motor Recovery after Permanent Focal Cerebral Ischemia in Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Systemic Arterial Hypertension (SAH), distinguished by a persistent elevation of blood pressure, emerges as a risk factor for stroke and Alzheimer's Disease (AD). Additionally, recent evidence suggests that stroke may adversely affect memory, potentially playing a role in the development of AD. This study aimed to investigate the influence of permanent focal ischemic stroke on memory, as well as on sensorimotor function (asymmetry of the front paws) and cerebral infarct size in adult male spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR), compared to normotensive Wistar Kyoto (WKY) rats. METHOD: We assessed the stroke effects on short- and long-term memory through the open field task (7 and 21 days after stroke), on sensorimotor functions through the cylinder test and adhesive removal test (over 42 days after stroke), and on infarction volume through 2,3,5-Triphenyltetrazolium chloride staining (3 and 7 days after stroke). RESULT: Short-term memory was observed in both naive WKY and naive SHR rats, while SHR naive animals did not exhibit long-term memory. Stroke disrupted short-term memory in both WKY and SHR rats and long-term memory in WKY rats (Fig. 01). In regards to the sensorimotor function, (cylinder test and adhesive removal) WKY rats totally recovered from the stroke-induced asymmetry in the front paws, while SHR rats did not (Fig. 02). Concerning infarction volume, WKY rats showed decreased infarction volume from the third to the seventh day after stroke, while SHR rats did not exhibit this reduction (Fig. 03). CONCLUSION: These results emphasize the impact of hypertension on memory, as well as on motor outcomes and brain infarct size following stroke, potentially contributing to the risk for AD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".