Intermittent Fasting Improves Functional Recovery after Rat Thoracic Contusion Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spinal cord injury (SCI) often results in a loss of motor and sensory function. Currently there are no validated effective clinical treatments. Previously we found in rats that dietary restriction, in the form of every-other-day fasting (EODF), started prior to (pre-EODF), or after (post-EODF) an incomplete cervical SCI was neuroprotective, increased plasticity, and promoted motor recovery. Here we examined if EODF initiated prior to, or after, a T10 thoracic contusion injury would similarly lead to enhanced functional recovery compared to ad libitum feeding. Additionally, we tested if a group fed every day (pair-fed), but with the same degree of restriction as the EODF animals (∼25% calorie restricted), would also promote functional recovery, to examine if EODF's effect is due to overall calorie restriction, or is specific to alternating sequences of 24-h fasts and ad libitum eating periods. Behaviorally, both pre- and post-EODF groups exhibited better functional recovery in the regularity indexed BBB ambulatory assessment, along with several parameters of their walking pattern measured with the CatWalk device, compared to both the ad-libitium-fed group as well as the pair-fed group. Several histological parameters (intensity and symmetry of serotonin immunostaining caudal to the injury and gray matter sparing) correlated with functional outcome; however, no group differences were observed. Thus besides the beneficial effects of EODF after a partial cervical SCI, we now report that alternating periods of fasting (but not pair-fed) also promotes improved hindlimb locomotion after thoracic spinal cord contusion, demonstrating its robust effect in two different injury models.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".