Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 528

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Lateral Fluid Percussion Brain Injury: A 15-Year Review and Evaluation

Thompson, Hilaire J., Lifshitz, Jonathan, Marklund, Niklas, Grady, M. Sean, Graham, David I., Hovda, David A., McIntosh, Tracy K.·2005·Journal of Neurotrauma

Abstract

This article comprehensively reviews the lateral fluid percussion (LFP) model of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in small animal species with particular emphasis on its validity, clinical relevance and reliability. The LFP model, initially described in 1989, has become the most extensively utilized animal model of TBI (to date, 232 PubMed citations), producing both focal and diffuse (mixed) brain injury. Despite subtle variations in injury parameters between laboratories, universal findings are evident across studies, including histological, physiological, metabolic, and behavioral changes that serve to increase the reliability of the model. Moreover, demonstrable histological damage and severity-dependent behavioral deficits, which partially recover over time, validate LFP as a clinically-relevant model of human TBI. The LFP model, also has been used extensively to evaluate potential therapeutic interventions, including resuscitation, pharmacologic therapies, transplantation, and other neuroprotective and neuroregenerative strategies. Although a number of positive studies have identified promising therapies for moderate TBI, the predictive validity of the model may be compromised when findings are translated to severely injured patients. Recently, the clinical relevance of LFP has been enhanced by combining the injury with secondary insults, as well as broadening studies to incorporate issues of gender and age to better approximate the range of human TBI within study design. We conclude that the LFP brain injury model is an appropriate tool to study the cellular and mechanistic aspects of human TBI that cannot be addressed in the clinical setting, as well as for the development and characterization of novel therapeutic interventions. Continued translation of pre-clinical findings to human TBI will enhance the predictive validity of the LFP model, and allow novel neuroprotective and neuroregenerative treatment strategies developed in the laboratory to reach the appropriate TBI patients.

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 · 10.1089/neu.2005.22.42

Cites

17 of 17 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

Cited by

See all 528

Metadata

Authors
Thompson, H. J., Lifshitz, J., Marklund, N., Grady, M. S., Graham, D. I., Hovda, D. A., & McIntosh, T. K.
Venue
Journal of Neurotrauma
Published
2005-01
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
42-75
ISSN
  • 0897-7151 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-9042
OpenAlex
W1999934730
Cited by
528
References
17
FWCI
14.12
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

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.