A comparison of different models of stroke on behaviour and brain morphology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared the effects of three models of permanent ischemia, as well as cortical aspiration, on behaviour and brain morphology. Rats received a stroke either by devascularization or by two different procedures of medial cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO; small vs. large). Animals were trained in a reaching task, forepaw asymmetry, forepaw inhibition, sunflower seed task and tongue extension. Behaviour was assessed 1 week after the lesion and at 2-week intervals for a total of 9 weeks. One week after the surgery all animals were severely impaired on all tasks and although they improved over time they only reached preoperative base lines on tongue extension. Animals with small MCAOs performed better in reaching and sunflower tasks; no other behavioural differences were detected among the groups. Pyramidal cells in forelimb and cingulate areas as well as spiny neurons of the striatum were examined for dendritic branching and spine density using a Golgi-Cox procedure. Each lesion type had a different impact on cell morphology. Overall, different changes (atrophy or hypertrophy) were observed with each kind of lesion and these changes were specific for the region (forelimb, cingulate, striatum) and the condition (intact vs. damaged hemisphere). These results suggest that: (i) different lesions to the motor cortex produce subtle differences in behaviour, and (ii) the method used to induce the lesion produces striking differences in cortical and subcortical plasticity.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".