Skip to the content
Aletheia

Collapse, Not Computation · source record · paper

Brain-penetrant microtubule-stabilizer epothilone B delays isoflurane-induced unconsciousness in mice

Huang, Yixiang; Qiu, Zitong; Yu, Xinyue; Lee, Sophia; Zeng, Xiran; Chang, Abbie; Wiest, Michael C. · 2026

AI-verified citationSRC-HUANG-2026
identifier / locator
Neuropharmacology 287: 110834. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2026.110834
url
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2026.110834
verification note
Verified via Crossref and PubMed (PMID 41519196); abstract read directly (2026-08-22 run). The +29 s within-subject figure, Cohen's d = 0.8, the 8 mg/kg single subcutaneous dose, and the decay of the effect on subsequent days are confirmed in the abstract.
reliability notes
  • Cross-species extension of SRC-KHAN-2024, same senior author and research program at Wellesley — a useful replication of direction, NOT an independent-laboratory replication.
  • Creditably, the abstract itself cites the contradictory independent mouse study (SRC-LI-2025) rather than omitting it.
  • The abstract concedes the 29 s effect 'is not large compared to the variability among different animals.'

Evidence drawn from this source

Supports· weakORCH-E012

Same effect in mice (+29 s, d = 0.8) — same laboratory, not independent

what the source states
The abstract reports that a single 8 mg/kg subcutaneous dose of epothilone B delayed isoflurane-induced LORR in mice by 29 seconds in a within-subject comparison, with Cohen's d = 0.8, and that the effect decayed over subsequent days. The abstract states the effect "is not large compared to the variability among different animals" and cites the contradictory independent finding of Li et al. 2025.
what we infer
A cross-species extension that reproduces the direction of the rat result, which is worth something — but it is a within-program replication with a shared senior author, not the independent confirmation that would matter, and the effect is smaller in both absolute and standardized terms. Graded weak for that reason. The authors deserve explicit credit for citing the contradictory independent study in their own abstract rather than omitting it; that is the behavior of a research program engaging with disconfirmation.
limitations
  • Same senior author and research program as ORCH-E011; a replication of direction within one laboratory, not independent confirmation.
  • Smaller effect than the rat study and acknowledged by the authors as modest against inter-animal variability.
  • Effect decayed on subsequent days, which the paper reports but does not explain.
  • No quantum variable measured; same wholesale-perturbation confounds as the rat study.