Peripheral nerve regeneration through a synthetic hydrogel nerve tube
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: As alternatives to nerve grafts for peripheral nerve repair, we have synthesized 12 mm long poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate-co-methyl methacrylate) (PHEMA-MMA) porous tubes and studied their regenerative capacity for the repair of surgically-created 10 mm rat sciatic nerve gaps. We compared the in vivo regenerative efficacy of these artificial tubes with the gold standard, the nerve autograft. METHODS: Tubes were assessed in vivo for their ability to support nerve regeneration at 4, 8, and 16 weeks post-implantation by histology, electrophysiology, histomorphometry, and reinnervated lateral gastrocnemius (LG) dry muscle mass. RESULTS: Axonal regeneration within the tubes was observed by 8 weeks, with outcome parameters comparable to autografts. This finding was further supported by the electrophysiological and histomorphometric results. The 16 week tube group had a bimodal response, with 60% of the tubes having a similar response to autografts and the other 40% having significantly lower (p < 0.05) outcome measures in several parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Axonal regeneration in artificial tubes was similar to that in autografts at 8 and 16 weeks, however, a bimodal distribution of regeneration was observed in 16 week tubes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".