Synthetic Hydrogel Guidance Channels Facilitate Regeneration of Adult Rat Brainstem Motor Axons after Complete Spinal Cord Transection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synthetic guidance channels or tubes have been shown to promote axonal regeneration within the spinal cord from brainstem motor nuclei with the inclusion of agents such as matrices, cells, or growth factors to the tube. We examined the biocompatibility and regenerative capacity of synthetic hydrogel tubular devices that were composed of poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate-co-methyl methacrylate) (PHEMA-MMA). Two PHEMA-MMA channels, having a mean elastic modulus of either 177 or 311 kPa were implanted into T8-transected spinal cords of adult Sprague Dawley rats. The cord stumps were inserted into the channels and fibrin glue was applied to the cord-channel interface. An expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) membrane was used for duraplasty. Controls underwent cord transection alone. Gross and microscopic examination of the spinal cords showed continuity of tissue within the synthetic guidance channels between the cord stumps at 4 and 8 weeks. There was a trend towards an increased area and width of bridging neural tissue in the 311-kPa guidance channels compared to the 177-kPa channels. Neurofilament stained axons were visualized within the bridging tissue, and serotonergic axons were found to enter the 311-kPa channel. Retrograde axonal tracing revealed regeneration of axons from reticular, vestibular, and raphe brainstem motor nuclei. For both channels, there was minimal scarring at the channel-cord interface, and less scarring at the channel-dura interface compared to that observed next to the ePTFE. The present study is the first to show that axons from brainstem motor nuclei regenerated in unfilled synthetic hydrogel guidance channels after complete spinal cord transection.
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) | 0.000 | 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".