The Distribution of Tissue Damage in the Spinal Cord Is Influenced by the Contusion Velocity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A rat model of thoracic spinal cord contusion was used to examine the effect of velocity on the primary injury. OBJECTIVES: The overall objective of this study was to determine the effect of the contusion velocity (slow vs. fast) on damage to the spinal cord immediately following mechanical injury. Secondary objectives were to demarcate between damage in the gray and white matters and to observe damage to the mechanical elements of the neurons (i.e., neurofilaments). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although studies have explored the effect of impact velocity on spinal cord damage and functional deficits, no study has addressed regional tissue damage of the primary injury (e.g., between the gray and white matter) as a function of velocity. METHODS: A modified Spinal Cord Injury Research System generated 1 mm contusions in 24 male, Sprague-Dawley rats (210-320 g) at T10, using slow (3 mm/s) and fast (300 mm/s) velocities. The primary lesion (<2 minutes postinjury) was assessed using hematoxylin and eosin staining for hemorrhage volume and immunostaining for nonphosphorylated heavy neurofilament damage. RESULTS: The volume of hemorrhage in the white matter was significantly increased following fast impact (fast = 0.61 mm3, slow = 0.24 mm3, P = 0.013) whereas the total hemorrhage volume (fast = 1.51 mm, slow = 1.21 mm, P = 0.22) showed no effect. Complete axonal disruption was evident in the fast injury group around the injury epicenter. A significant increase in nonphosphorylated neurofilament staining (P = 0.013) was observed for fast impacts. Hemorrhage in the gray matter was similar between the slow and fast groups, but an increase in neurofilament dephosphorylation was observed in the gray matter following fast contusion (P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: We conclude that contusion velocity has an effect on the magnitude of injury within the white matter during spinal cord injury and the amount of neuronal damage in the gray matter. The results of this study demonstrate the importance of including high impact velocity as a variable in models of spinal cord injury.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".