MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029700780 · doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2003.046219

Developmental Aspects of Spinal Locomotor Function: Insights from Using the <i>in vitro</i> Mouse Spinal Cord Preparation

2003· review· en· W2029700780 on OpenAlexafffund
Patrick J. Whelan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicZebrafish Biomedical Research Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFondation pour la Recherche MédicaleHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsSpinal cordNeuroscienceCentral pattern generatorBiologyIn vitroSpinal cord injuryEmbryonic stem cellFunction (biology)AnatomyCell biologyMedicineGeneticsInternal medicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.305 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations60
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PhysiologySame topicZebrafish Biomedical Research ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207