Anterior Spinal Cord Contusion on Porcine Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animal models are commonly used to study spinal cord injuries (SCI). These models aim to better understand the traumatic behaviour of the spinal cord in vivo. However, experimental SCI models usually simulate a posterior contusion of the spinal cord on small animals, which do not reproduce completely the SCI mechanisms in humans. The objectives of the study are: 1) to develop an experimental anterior contusion of the spinal cord on porcine models, and 2) to compare biomechanical differences between ventral and dorsal approaches. A total of 6 specimens were tested in vivo with a drop weight bench test. Impacts were produced at T10 with 5mm diameter impactor of 50g and dropped from a height of 100mm. Compression time was set to 5min for 4 specimens (2 ventral, 2 dorsal) and 60min for 1 ventral and 1 dorsal. The outcome measures were the compression displacement, blood pressure, heart rate and macroscopic inspection of the spinal cord. This is the first study proposing an animal model of anterior SCI. Preliminary results suggest that there is a biomechanical difference between ventral and dorsal contusion approaches. A new bench test especially designed for ventral contusion will allow additional tests analyzing more variables, such as the motor evoked potentials and arterial blood flow.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".