Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 339

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Intracerebral Hemorrhage Models in Rat: Comparing Collagenase to Blood Infusion

MacLellan, Crystal L, Silasi, Gergely, Poon, Candice C, Edmundson, Carmen L, Buist, Richard, Peeling, James, Colbourne, Frederick·2008·Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism

Abstract

Many therapies have shown promise in preclinical stroke studies, but few benefit patients. A greater understanding of stroke pathophysiology is needed to successfully develop therapies, and this depends on appropriate animal models. The collagenase and blood infusion models of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) are widely used; yet, investigators often prefer using one model for a variety of reasons. Thus, we directly compared these to highlight advantages and limitations of each as well as the assessment approach. An ICH was created by infusing blood or bacterial collagenase into the rats' striatum. We matched initial hematoma volume in each model (Experiment 1) and assessed the time course of bleeding (Experiment 2). Functional deficits and the progression of injury were tracked over 6 weeks using behavior, magnetic resonance imaging, and histology (Experiment 3). Despite similar initial hematoma volumes, collagenase-induced ICH resulted in a greater blood—brain barrier breakdown and more damage to the striatum, substantia nigra, white matter, and cortex. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed faster hematoma resolution in the blood model, and little increase in the volume of tissue lost from 1 to 6 weeks. In contrast, tissue loss continued over 4 weeks in the collagenase model. Finally, functional deficits recovered more quickly and completely in the blood model. This study highlights key differences between these models and that neither closely replicates the human condition. Thus, both should be used whenever possible taking into account the significant differences between these models and their limitations. Furthermore, this work illustrates significant weaknesses with several outcome measures.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/sj.jcbfm.9600548

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 35 references

Cited by

See all 339

Metadata

Authors
MacLellan, C. L., Silasi, G., Poon, C. C., Edmundson, C. L., Buist, R., Peeling, J., & Colbourne, F.
Venue
Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism
Published
2007-08-29
Volume
28
Issue
3
Pages
516-525
ISSN
  • 0271-678X (ISSN-L)
  • 1559-7016
OpenAlex
W2105196489
Cited by
339
References
35
FWCI
9.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Intracerebral Hemorrhage Models in Rat: Comparing Collagenase to Blood Infusion. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/sj.jcbfm.9600548
The paper
MacLellan, C. L., Silasi, G., Poon, C. C., Edmundson, C. L., Buist, R., Peeling, J., & Colbourne, F. (2008). Intracerebral Hemorrhage Models in Rat: Comparing Collagenase to Blood Infusion. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jcbfm.9600548

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.