Comparison of Injury and Development in the Neuromuscular System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparisons of development and regeneration have suggested that axotomized motoneurons and denervated muscles undergo dedifferentiation to an embryonic state with recovery of adult properties after reinnervation. Using electrophysiological and radioligand-binding techniques to monitor axonal size and numbers of extrajunctional acetylcholine receptors in axotomized motoneurons and denervated muscles respectively, we have demonstrated that this dedifferentiation is limited. We suggest that this limited dedifferentiation may be adaptive for survival, regeneration and reinnervation. Correlative physiological and histochemical studies of reinnervated motor units in cat and rat hindlimb muscles show that the processes of regeneration and reinnervation differ in a number of fundamental ways from developmental processes of axonal growth and muscle innervation. Enlargement of motor units after partial nerve injuries does not appear to be limited to the size of the neonatal motor unit as originally suggested but may be influenced by factors operating at the level of axonal branching. Regeneration after complete and partial nerve injuries is a random process in contrast to the specific nature of the innervation of targets during development. Regenerating axons frequently fail to make connections with their original muscles and newly reinnervated motor units contain muscle fibres which formerly belonged to several different motor units. Despite this misdirection of regenerating nerve fibres, neuromuscular plasticity restores neuromuscular properties to the extent that these are appropriate at the single motor unit level for the gradation of force by the orderly recruitment of units during movement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".