MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1949085980 · doi:10.4081/ejtm.2015.5243

Electrical stimulation enhances reinnervation after nerve injury

2015· review· en· W1949085980 on OpenAlexaff
Michael P. Willand

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Translational Myology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersMED-EL Medical Electronics
KeywordsReinnervationStimulationFunctional electrical stimulationNeuroscienceMedicinePeripheral nerve injuryElectrical muscle stimulationPeripheralAnesthesiaInternal medicineBiologySciatic nerve

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrical muscle stimulation following peripheral nerve injury has been a controversial method of treatment due primarily to the inconsistent literature surrounding it. In this presentation transcript I outline ongoing experiments investigating a clinically translatable daily muscle stimulation paradigm in rats following nerve injury. Results show that reinnervation of muscle and functional behavioural metrics are enhanced with daily stimulation with upregulation of intramuscular neurotrophic factors as a potential mechanism. In addition, the impact of stimulation on terminal sprouting, a mentioned negative aspect of electrical muscle stimulation, was a minor contributor to long term functional reinnervation of stimulated muscles in our studies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.263 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations53
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Translational MyologySame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207