Developmental Aspects of Spinal Locomotor Function: Insights from Using the <i>in vitro</i> Mouse Spinal Cord Preparation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last five years, rapid advances have been made in our understanding of the location, function, and recently, organization of the central pattern generator (CPG) for locomotion. In the mammal, the use of the neonatal rat has largely contributed to these advances. Additionally, the use of the in vitro mouse spinal cord preparation is becoming more common, catalysed in part by the potential for the use of genetic approaches to study locomotor function. Although tempting, it is necessary to resist the a priori assumption that the organization of the spinal CPG is identical in the rat and mouse. This review will describe the development of locomotor-like behaviour in the mouse from embryonic day 12 to postnatal day 14. While there are still many gaps in our knowledge, compared with the rat, the in vitro mouse appears to follow a qualitatively similar course of locomotor development. The emphasis in this review is the use or potential use of the mouse as a complement to existing data using the neonatal rat preparation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".