MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045593763 · doi:10.1037/0735-7044.120.4.826

Strain-dependent recovery of spontaneous hindlimb movement in spinal cord transected mice (CD1, C57BL/6, BALB/c).

2006· article· en· W2045593763 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicolas Lapointe, Roth‐Visal Ung, Maxime Bergeron, Martin Côté, Pierre A. Guertin

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Neuroscience · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHindlimbSpinal cordSpinal cord injuryStrain (injury)Spontaneous recoveryLumbosacral jointNeuroscienceMedicineAnatomyCordNeuroplasticityAnesthesiaBiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reorganization and plasticity after spinal cord injury have been recently shown to take place in sublesional neuronal networks, but the possibility of strain-dependent changes at that level has never been explored. The authors studied the spontaneous return of hindlimb movement in low-thoracic spinal cord transected (Tx) mice from 3 commonly used strains. Without intervention, most CD1, C57BL/6, and BALB/c mice displayed some hindlimb movement recovery after Tx. Although all assessment methods unanimously reported that CD1 displayed higher recovery levels than did the C57BL/6 and BALB/c, higher scores were generally found with the Antri-Orsal-Barthe (M. Antri, D. Orsal, & J. Y. Barthe, 2002) and the Average Combined Score (P. A. Guertin, 2005a) methods. Such spontaneous recovery in low-thoracic Tx mice is likely the result of neuronal plasticity at the lumbosacral spinal cord level, suggesting that these sublesional changes are strain dependent.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations24
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral NeuroscienceSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207