Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 218

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Rapid Preconditioning Protects Rats against Ischemic Neuronal Damage after 3 but Not 7 Days of Reperfusion following Global Cerebral Ischemia

Open access
Pérez-Pinzón, Miguel A., Xu, Guang-Ping, Dietrich, W. Dalton, Rosenthal, Myron, Sick, Thomas J.·1997·Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism

Abstract

Earlier studies indicated that sublethal ischemic insults separated by many hours may “precondition” and, thereby, protect tissues from subsequent insults. In Wistar rats, we examined the hypothesis that ischemic preconditioning (IPC) can improve histopathological outcome even if the “conditioning” and “test” ischemic insults are separated by only 30 min. Normothermic (36.5–37°C) global cerebral ischemia was produced by bilateral carotid artery ligation after lowering mean systemic blood pressure. The conditioning ischemic insult lasted 2 min and was associated with a time sufficient to provoke “anoxic depolarization” (AD) (i.e., the abrupt maximal increase in extracellular potassium ion activity). After 30 min of reperfusion, 10-min test ischemia was produced, and histopathology was assessed 3 and 7 days later. After 3 days of reperfusion, neuroprotection was most robust in the left lateral, middle and medial subsections of the hippocampal CA1 subfield and in the cortex, where protection was 91, 76, 70 and 86%, respectively. IPC also protected the right lateral, middle and medial subsections of the hippocampal CA1 region. These data demonstrate that neuroprotection against acute neuronal injury can be achieved by conditioning insults followed by only short (30 min) periods of reperfusion. However, neuroprotection almost disappeared when reperfusion was continued for 7 days. When test ischemia was decreased to 7 min, a clear trend of neuroprotection by IPC was observed. These data suggest that subsequent rescue of neuronal populations could be achieved with better understanding of the neuroprotective mechanisms involved in this rapid IPC model.

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 · 10.1097/00004647-199702000-00007

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.

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

Cited by

See all 218

Metadata

Authors
Pérez-Pinzón, M. A., Xu, G.-P., Dietrich, W. D., Rosenthal, M., & Sick, T. J.
Venue
Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism
Published
1997-02
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
175-182
ISSN
  • 0271-678X (ISSN-L)
  • 1559-7016
OpenAlex
W2065023418
Cited by
218
References
0
FWCI
5.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Rapid Preconditioning Protects Rats against Ischemic Neuronal Damage after 3 but Not 7 Days of Reperfusion following Global Cerebral Ischemia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00004647-199702000-00007
The paper
Pérez-Pinzón, M. A., Xu, G.-P., Dietrich, W. D., Rosenthal, M., & Sick, T. J. (1997). Rapid Preconditioning Protects Rats against Ischemic Neuronal Damage after 3 but Not 7 Days of Reperfusion following Global Cerebral Ischemia. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004647-199702000-00007

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.