Transplantation of Adult Rat Spinal Cord Stem/Progenitor Cells for Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stem/progenitor cells derived from the ependymal region of the spinal cord have the ability to self-renew and are multipotential for neurons and glia. These cells may have the ability to regenerate the injured mammalian spinal cord as they do in some lower vertebrates. However, the optimal conditions for transplantation and the fate of transplanted cells are not fully known. In the current study, spinal cord stem/progenitor cells were cultured from adult male rats expressing enhanced green fluorescent protein (eGFP). Neurospheres were transplanted at the time of clip compression injury (35-g force) into the injury site, or 1 mm rostral and caudal to the injury site. Neurospheres were also transplanted into a subacute model (day 9 after injury) and a chronic model (day 28 after injury). Functional recovery was also studied in an acute injury model with weekly locomotor testing over a 16-week period. A significant increase in cell survival at 7 days was seen in rats receiving rostral and caudal injections as compared to injection directly into the site of injury. A significant increase in cell survival was also seen in rats receiving subacute transplants at 9 days after injury. Transplanted cells differentiated primarily into astrocytes (31.2%) and oligodendrocytes (50.3%), and a small number of neurons (1%). No improvement was seen in the Basso, Beattie and Bresnahan (BBB) locomotor rating scale after acute transplantation as compared with injury only, although surviving transplanted cells were identified that had migrated across the injury site from the rostral and caudal injection sites.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".