MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018518194 · doi:10.1155/2013/912716

Time Course of the Soleus M Response and H Reflex after Lidocaine Tibial Nerve Block in the Rat

2013· article· en· W2018518194 on OpenAlexaff
K. Buffenoir, Philippe Decq, Chantal Pérot

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Scientific World JOURNAL · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsHotel Dieu Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLidocaineReflexAnesthesiaTibial nerveSciatic nerveStimulationMedicineH-reflexNerve blockSoleus muscleAnatomyEndocrinologySkeletal muscle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: In spastic subjects, lidocaine is often used to induce a block predictive of the result provided by subsequent surgery. Lidocaine has been demonstrated to inhibit the Hoffmann (H) reflex to a greater extent than the direct motor (M) response induced by electrical stimulation, but the timecourse of these responses has not been investigated. METHODS: An animal (rat) model of the effects of lidocaine on M and H responses was therefore developed to assess this time course. M and H responses were recorded in 18 adult rats before and after application of lidocaine to the sciatic nerve. RESULTS: Two to five minutes after lidocaine injection, M responses were markedly reduced (mean reduction of 44%) and H reflexes were completely abolished. Changes were observed more rapidly for the H reflex. The effects of lidocaine then persisted for 100 minutes. The effect of lidocaine was therefore more prolonged on the H reflex than on the M response. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that lidocaine blocks not only alpha motoneurons but also Ia afferent fibres responsible for the H reflex. The authors describe, for the first time, the detailed time course of the effect of lidocaine on direct or reflex activation of motoneurons in the rat.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Scientific World JOURNALSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207