Determining the effects of electrical stimulation on functional recovery of denervated rat gastrocnemius muscle using motor unit number estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of electrical muscle stimulation to treat denervated muscle prior to delayed reinnervation has been widely debated. There is evidence showing both positive and negative results following different protocols of electrical stimulation. In this study we investigated the role electrical stimulation has on muscle reinnervation following immediate and delayed nerve repair using motor unit estimation techniques. Rat gastrocnemius muscle was denervated and repaired using the peroneal nerve either immediately or following three-months with and without electrical stimulation. Motor unit counts, average motor unit sizes, and maximum compound action potentials were measured three-months following peroneal nerve repair. Motor unit counts in animals that were denervated and stimulated were significantly higher than those that were denervated and not stimulated. Both average motor unit sizes and maximum compound action potentials showed no significant differences between denervated and denervated-stimulated animals. These results provide evidence that electrical stimulation prior to delayed nerve repair increases muscle receptivity to regenerating axons and may be a worthwhile treatment for peripheral nerve injuries.
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".