The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Repeated Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: Mechanisms of Cerebral Vulnerability
Open accessAbstract
Among the 3.5 million annual new head injury cases is a subpopulation of children and young adults who experience repeated traumatic brain injury (TBI). The duration of vulnerability after a single TBI remains unknown, and biomarkers have yet to be determined. Decreases in glucose metabolism (cerebral metabolic rate of glucose [CMRglc]) are consistently observed after experimental and human TBI. In the current study, it is hypothesized that the duration of vulnerability is related to the duration of decreased CMRglc and that a single mild TBI (mTBI) increases the brain's vulnerability to a second insult for a period, during which a subsequent mTBI will worsen the outcome. Postnatal day 35 rats were given sham, single mTBI, or two mTBI at 24-h or 120-h intervals. (14)C-2-deoxy-D-glucose autoradiography was conducted at 1 or 3 days post-injury to calculate CMRglc. At 24 h after a single mTBI, CMRglc is decreased by 19% in both the parietal cortex and hippocampus, but approached sham levels by 3 days post-injury. When a second mTBI is introduced during the CMRglc depression of the first injury, the consequent CMRglc is depressed (36.5%) at 24 h and remains depressed (25%) at 3 days. In contrast, when the second mTBI is introduced after the metabolic recovery of the first injury, the consequent CMRglc depression is similar to that seen with a single injury. Results suggest that the duration of metabolic depression reflects the time-course of vulnerability to second injury in the juvenile brain and could serve as a valuable biomarker in establishing window of vulnerability guidelines.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Sokoloff, L., Reivich, M., Kennedy, C., Rosiers, M. H. D., Patlak, C. S., Pettigrew, K. D., Sakurada, O., & Shinohara, M. (1977) · Journal of Neurochemistry · doi:10.1111/j.1471-4159.1977.tb10649.x · Cited by 6,000
A new one-trial test for neurobiological studies of memory in rats. 1: behavioral data
Ennaceur, A., & Delacour, J. (1988) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/0166-4328(88)90157-x · Cited by 3,223
REEVES, T., PHILLIPS, L., & POVLISHOCK, J. (2005) · Experimental Neurology · doi:10.1016/j.expneurol.2005.07.014 · Cited by 270
Pathobiology of traumatically induced axonal injury in animals and man
Povlishock, J. T. (1993) · Annals of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0196-0644(05)82738-6 · Cited by 236 · cited 1×
“TBI has been shown to damage axons 61 and result in white matter damage.”
Adolescent brain development and animal models
SPEAR, L. P. (2004) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1196/annals.1308.002 · Cited by 215
Cited by
The New Neurometabolic Cascade of Concussion
Giza, C. C., & Hovda, D. A. (2014) · Neurosurgery · doi:10.1227/neu.0000000000000505 · Cited by 1,353
Self-citationDiagnosis, prognosis, and clinical management of mild traumatic brain injury
Levin, H. S., & Diaz-Arrastia, R. R. (2015) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(15)00002-2 · Cited by 535
Head-Impact–Measurement Devices: A Systematic Review
O'Connor, K. L., Rowson, S., Duma, S. M., & Broglio, S. P. (2017) · Journal of Athletic Training · doi:10.4085/1062-6050.52.2.05 · Cited by 210
Nowinski, C. J., Bureau, S. C., Buckland, M. E., Curtis, M. A., Daneshvar, D. H., Faull, R. L. M., Grinberg, L. T., Hill-Yardin, E. L., Murray, H. C., Pearce, A. J., et al. (2022) · Frontiers in Neurology · doi:10.3389/fneur.2022.938163 · Cited by 183
Petraglia, A., Plog, B., Dayawansa, S., Dashnaw, M., Czerniecka, K., Walker, C., Chen, M., Hyrien, O., Iliff, J., Deane, R., et al. (2014) · Surgical Neurology International · doi:10.4103/2152-7806.147566 · Cited by 151
Metadata
- Authors
- Prins, M. L., Alexander, D., Giza, C. C., & Hovda, D. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Neurotrauma
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2013-01
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 30-38
- ISSN
- 0897-7151 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-9042
- OpenAlex
- W2058042345
- Cited by
- 326
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 18.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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.