The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Feasibility and Safety of Vagal Stimulation In Monkey Model
Abstract
Summary: The feasibility, safety, and preliminary effects of chronic vagal stimulation were studied in an alumina‐gel monkey model. Pilot studies to perfect the equipment, determine stimulation thresholds, and insure the comfort and safety of the animals preceded this study. Four monkeys were equipped with an indwelling, 2‐electrode cuff (titanium bands spaced 7 mm apart; silicone encased; 1.5 cm total length) in contact around the right vagus nerve; avoidance of the cardiac branch was confirmed by electrocardiograms. After postsurgical recovery, the intact and awake animals received constant‐current stimulation (5 mA; 83 Hz, 143 Hz, or 50–250 Hz randomly; 0.5‐ms pulse width) at the onset of every spontaneous seizure for the duration of the seizure or every 3 h for 40 s if stimulation had not occurred in the preceding hour. Stimulation periods of 2–6 weeks, with differing levels of stimulation, were preceded and followed by at least a 2‐week baseline period of no stimulation. During the stimulation periods, the seizure rate decreased to zero in two monkeys and the interseizure intervals became invariable in the remaining two monkeys. These effects carried over temporarily into the poststimulation baseline periods. Vagal stimulation had no consistent effects on seizure severity or EEG interictal spikes. Histological studies of six vagus nerves were unable to separate electrode cuff damage from any direct effects stimulation may have had on the nerves. Although it appears that chronic vagal stimulation is feasible and that epileptogenic processes are influenced, the safety and efficacy of the procedure are still in question.
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
Effects of Vagal Stimulation on Experimentally Induced Seizures in Rats
Woodbury, D. M., & Woodbury, J. W. (1990) · Epilepsia · doi:10.1111/j.1528-1157.1990.tb05852.x · Cited by 369
Peñaloza Rojas, J. H. (1964) · Experimental Neurology · doi:10.1016/0014-4886(64)90071-8 · Cited by 23
Cited by
Ben‐Menachem, E., Mañon‐Espaillat, R., Ristanovic, R., Wilder, B. J., Stefan, H., Mirza, W., Tarver, W. B., Wernicke, J. F., & First International Vagus Nerve Stimulation Study Group (1994) · Epilepsia · doi:10.1111/j.1528-1157.1994.tb02482.x · Cited by 683
Vagus-nerve stimulation for the treatment of epilepsy
Ben-Menachem, E. (2002) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(02)00220-x · Cited by 560
Locus Coeruleus Lesions Suppress the Seizure‐Attenuating Effects of Vagus Nerve Stimulation
Krahl, S. E., Clark, K. B., Smith, D. C., & Browning, R. A. (1998) · Epilepsia · doi:10.1111/j.1528-1157.1998.tb01155.x · Cited by 555
George, M. S., & Aston-Jones, G. (2010) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/npp.2009.87 · Cited by 401
Henry, T. R., Bakay, R. A. E., Votaw, J. R., Pennell, P. B., Epstein, C. M., Faber, T. L., Grafton, S. T., & Hoffman, J. M. (1998) · Epilepsia · doi:10.1111/j.1528-1157.1998.tb01448.x · Cited by 366
Metadata
- Authors
- Lockard, J. S., Congdon, W. C., & DuCharme, L. L.
- Venue
- Epilepsia
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1990-06
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- s2
- Pages
- S20-6
- ISSN
- 0013-9580 (ISSN-L)
- 1528-1167
- OpenAlex
- W2024424213
- Cited by
- 189
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 2.08
- 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: Feasibility and Safety of Vagal Stimulation In Monkey Model. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1528-1157.1990.tb05844.x
- The paper
- Lockard, J. S., Congdon, W. C., & DuCharme, L. L. (1990). Feasibility and Safety of Vagal Stimulation In Monkey Model. Epilepsia. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-1157.1990.tb05844.x
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.