MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974396016 · doi:10.1089/neu.2009.1025

The Microvascular Impact of Focal Nerve Trunk Injury

2009· article· en· W1974396016 on OpenAlexaff
Qing‐Gui Xu, Rajiv Midha, Douglas W. Zochodne

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurotrauma · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrush injuryMedicineBlood flowMicroneurographyLaser Doppler velocimetryAnatomyTrunkMicrocirculationAnesthesiaSurgeryCardiologyInternal medicineBlood pressureBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The microvascular supply of the peripheral nerve trunk may be rendered vulnerable by acute focal injuries, particularly if they are associated with direct injury to the epineurial blood supply. In this work we tracked the impact of three clinically relevant forms of focal nerve trunk injury on serial measures of epineurial weighted erythrocyte flux and endoneurial blood flow: short-length crush injuries, long-segmental crush injuries, and crush injuries with superimposed vascular stripping to model added direct epineurial damage. Red blood cell (RBC) flux was measured using quantitative multiple sampling laser doppler flowmetry, and endoneurial blood flow by microelectrode hydrogen clearance polarography. Both short and long crush injuries transiently reduced epineurial RBC flux, most prominently in long injuries, to 34% by 1 h after injury. The changes were less prominent when deeper flux was examined, whereas endoneurial blood flow was not altered by either injury. Long crush injury with added stripping of the epineurial blood supply was associated with more profound declines in epineurial RBC flux, to 16% by 3 h, with recovery at 14 days to 70% of that of the contralateral intact nerve trunk. There was, however, only a minimal impact on endoneurial flow: mild reductions immediately and at 1 h after injury, with rebound hyperemia by 48 h. Despite the presence of prominent epineurial ischemia, regenerative sprouting was not impaired by longer segmental injuries with or without epineurial vascular stripping. Axon sprouting was more prominent in both of these types of injuries compared to short-crush lesions. Taken together, these results indicate that focal nerve trunk injury is remarkably resistant to endoneurial ischemia, and that it can sustain regenerative sprouting in spite of prolonged alterations in the epineurial circulation. Approaches to augment epineurial microvascular viability after nerve injury may not support better regeneration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurotraumaSame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207