MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985635620 · doi:10.1089/neu.2006.23.897

Adaptations in the Walking Pattern of Spinal Cord Injured Rats

2006· article· en· W1985635620 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Ballermann, Arthur D.Y. Tse, John E. Misiaszek, Karim Fouad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurotrauma · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpinal cord injuryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSpinal cordMedicineHindlimbRehabilitationNeurosciencePhysical therapyPsychologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Walking ability is a measure of recovery used in many studies that test experimental strategies to treat injuries or diseases of the central nervous system (CNS) in animal models. A common measure in the rat animal model of thoracic spinal cord injury (SCI) is visual inspection and scoring of hind limb activity, which allows the documentation of movements associated with the recovery of locomotor function. In this study, we expand on previously documented visible changes in the locomotor pattern following SCI. The spontaneous recovery of locomotion in rats with thoracic SCIs of variable extent was evaluated using electromyographic (EMG) and kinematic analysis while rats walked on an elevated runway. Comparisons with pre-lesion walking sequences revealed changes in the kinematics and in the muscle activation pattern of various muscles, including enhanced fore limb extensor activity, possibly reflecting an increased contribution to propulsion, altered recruitment of back muscles inserting into the hip (possibly to support stepping movements), and elevated posture during stance, which may compensate for deficits in weight support. These changes were noted in spinal cord injured rats with varying degrees of impairment, including animals with no visually detectable deficit in open-field walking. In summary, the presented results demonstrate that spinal cord injured rats develop alternative locomotor patterns following SCI that cannot be discriminated by the use of qualitative visually based analysis, thus urging the use of quantitative outcome measures in assessing motor function after SCI.

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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations41
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurotraumaSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207