Local administration of prostaglandin E1 combined with silicone chamber improves peripheral nerve regeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the effect of locally administered prostaglandin E1 on peripheral nerve regeneration and functional recovery. Sixty male healthy white Wistar rats were divided into four experimental groups (n = 15), randomly: In transected group (TC), left sciatic nerve was transected and stumps were fixed in the adjacent muscle. In treatment group defect was bridged using silicone graft (SIL/PE) filled with 10 μL prostaglandin E1. In silicone graft group (SIL), the graft was filled with phosphate-buffered saline alone. In sham-operated group (SHAM), sciatic nerve was exposed and manipulated. Each group was subdivided into three subgroups of five animals each and regenerated nerve fibers were studied 4, 8 and 12 weeks after surgery. Behavioral testing, sciatic nerve functional study, gastrocnemius muscle mass and morphometric indices confirmed faster recovery of regenerated axons in SIL/PE than SIL group (p < 0.05). In immunohistochemistry, location of reactions to S-100 in SIL/PE was clearly more positive than that in SIL group. When loaded in a silicone graft, prostaglandin E1 improved functional recovery and morphometric indices of sciatic nerve. Local application of prostaglandin E1 improved functional recovery and morphometric indices of sciatic nerve.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".