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 OpenAlex
Nicolas Lapointe, Roth‐Visal Ung, Maxime Bergeron, Martin Côté, Pierre A. Guertin

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

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.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.067
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