Reorganization and Preservation of Motor Control of the Brain in Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reorganization of brain function in people with CNS damage has been identified as one of the fundamental mechanisms involved in the recovery of sensorimotor function. Spinal cord injury (SCI) brain mapping studies during motor tasks aim for assessing the reorganization and preservation of brain networks involved in motor control. Revealing the activation of cortical and subcortical brain areas in people with SCI can indicate principal patterns of brain reorganization when the neurotrauma is distal to the brain. This review assessed brain activation after SCI in terms of intensity, volume, and somatotopic localization, as well as preservation of activation during attempted and/or imagined movements. Twenty-five studies meeting the inclusion criteria could be identified in Medline (1980 to January 2008). Relevant characteristics of studies (level of lesion, time after injury, motor task) and mapping techniques varied widely. Changes in brain activation were found in both cortical and subcortical areas of individuals with SCI. In addition, several studies described a shift in the region of brain activation. These patterns appeared to be dynamic and influenced by the level, completeness, and time after injury, as well as extent of clinical recovery. In addition, several aspects of reorganization of brain function following SCI resembled those reported in stroke. This review demonstrates that brain networks involved in different demands of motor control remain responsive even in chronic paralysis. These findings imply that therapeutic strategies aimed at restoring spinal cord function, even in people with chronic SCI, can build on preserved competent brain control.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".