Bridging Small-Gap Peripheral Nerve Defect Using Silicone Rubber Chamber in the Rat Sciatic Nerve Transection Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite promising results observed using silicone rubber chamber, no previous comprehensive work was performed on behavior of the conduit. Present study aimed at further functional, histomorphometrical and immunohistochemical assessment of nerve regeneration in the same animal along a 10-mm rat sciatic nerve gap. Fifty- four male Wistar rats were divided into three experimental groups (n = 18), randomly: Sham-operation (NC), Transected control (TC) and silicone conduit (SIL). In NC group after anesthesia left sciatic nerve was exposed through a gluteal muscle incision and after haemoestasis the muscle was sutured. In TC group left sciatic nerve was exposed the same way and transected proximal to the tibio-peroneal bifurcation leaving a 10-mm gap. In SIL group left sciatic nerve was transected the same way and proximal and distal stumps were each inserted into a silicone tube. Each group was subdivided into three subgroups of six animals each and were studied 4, 8, 12 weeks after surgery. Functional analysis showed significant improvement of nerve function in SIL group than in TC group (P < 0.05). Morphometric indices and immuohistochemistry indicated there were significant differences (P < 0.05) between SIL and TC groups 12 weeks after surgery. Silicone entubulation technique has offered the hope of providing a method for achieving the peripheral nerve regeneration in the least harmful way that is available, easily performed. Using silicone tubes in bridging of nerve defects could be promising because it is inert and does not induce extensive scarring or degeneration after implantation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".