MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1495651167 · doi:10.1002/mus.24322

Electrical stimulation influences satellite cell differentiation after sciatic nerve crush injury in rats

2014· article· en· W1495651167 on OpenAlexaff
Hua-Yi Xing, Mouwang Zhou, Peggy Assinck, Nan Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueMuscle & Nerve · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle Physiology and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMyoDStimulationSciatic nerveMyosinPopulationMuscle atrophyGastrocnemius muscleAnatomyAtrophyMedicineEndocrinologyCrush injuryInternal medicineMyogenesisMyocyteBiologySkeletal muscleCell biologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Electrical stimulation is often used to prevent muscle atrophy and preserve contractile function, but its effects on the satellite cell population after nerve injury are not well understood. In this study we aimed to determine whether satellite cell differentiation is affected by electrical stimulation after nerve crush. METHODS: The sciatic nerves of Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats were crushed. Half of the injured rats received daily electrical stimulation of the gastrocnemius muscle, and the others did not. Tests for detecting paired box protein 7 (Pax7), myogenic differentiation antigen (MyoD), embryonic myosin heavy chain (eMyHC), and force production were performed 2, 4, and 6 weeks after injury. RESULTS: More Pax7+/MyoD+ nuclei in stimulated muscles were observed than in non-stimulated muscles. eMyHC expression was elevated in stimulated muscles and correlated positively with enhanced force production. CONCLUSIONS: Increased satellite cell differentiation is correlated with preserved muscle function in response to electrical stimulation after nerve injury.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.641

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMuscle & NerveSame topicMuscle Physiology and DisordersFrench-language works237,207