1,720,994 research outputs found

    Antioxidant therapy and neuroprotection in the newborn

    No full text
    Injury to the perinatal brain is a leading cause of childhood mortality and lifelong disability. Despite recent improvements in neonatal care, no effective treatment for perinatal brain lesions is available. The newborn, especially if preterm, is highly prone to oxidative stress (OS) and to the toxic effect of free radicals (FRs). At birth, the newborn is exposed to a relatively hyperoxic environment caused by an increased oxygen bioavailability with greatly enhanced generation of FRs. Additional sources (e.g., inflammation, hypoxia, ischemia, glutamate and free iron release) occur, magnifying OS. In the preterm baby, the perinatal transition is accompanied by the immaturity of the antioxidant systems and the reduced ability to induce efficient homeostatic mechanisms designed to control overproduction of cell-damaging FRs. Improved understanding of the pathophysiological mechanism involved in perinatal brain lesions helps to identify potential targets for neuroprotective interventions, and the knowledge of these mechanisms has enabled scientists to develop new therapeutic strategies that have confirmed their neuroprotective effects in animal studies. Considering the growing role of OS in preterm newborn morbidity in respect to the higher risk of FR damage in these babies, erythropoietin, allopurinol, melatonin and hypothermia demonstrate great promise as potential neuroprotectans. This article provides an overview of the pathogenesis of FR-mediated diseases of the newborn and the antioxidant strategies now tested in order to reduce OS and its damaging effects

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore