MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024659682 · doi:10.1089/neu.2007.0323

Retrograde Axonal Degeneration (“Dieback”) in the Corticospinal Tract after Transection Injury of the Rat Spinal Cord: A Confocal Microscopy Study

2007· article· en· W2024659682 on OpenAlexafffund
Gamal I. Seif, Hiroshi Nomura, Charles H. Tator

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurotrauma · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCorticospinal tractSpinal cord injurySpinal cordAnatomyPyramidal tractsConfocal microscopyConfocalAxonMedicineBiologyMagnetic resonance imagingNeuroscienceRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Axonal dieback is a process in which axons in spinal tracts retract away from the initial site of injury. The purpose of this project is to study the dynamics of dieback in corticospinal tract (CST) axons after various time intervals post-injury, to find the optimal spatial-temporal window for regenerative treatment. Rats received transection injuries at the T8 spinal level and were sacrificed at different time periods (1, 2, 4, 8, and 16 weeks). Three weeks prior to sacrifice, DiI crystals were implanted in the sensorimotor cortex and produced excellent CST labeling, and clear delineation of the terminal bulbs of transected axons. With DiI and confocal microscopy, we visualized axons along the entire length of the CST, and quantified the temporal and spatial features of dieback in axons of the CST based on the location of the terminal bulbs. We found that the majority of axons stopped dieing back 4 weeks after injury by which time they were approximately 2.5 mm from the site of injury. However, at 8 and 16 weeks after injury, some terminal bulbs were more than 10 and 19 mm, respectively, from the site of injury.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations51
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurotraumaSame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207