MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050810267 · doi:10.1115/1.4027670

Characterization of a Novel, Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Compatible Rodent Model Spinal Cord Injury Device

2014· article· en· W2050810267 on OpenAlexaff
Tim Bhatnagar, Jie Liu, Thomas R. Oxland

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomechanical Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpinal cord injuryMagnetic resonance imagingSpinal cordMedicineCadaveric spasmCordRodent modelWhite matterAnatomyNuclear medicineRadiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rodent models of acute spinal cord injury (SCI) are often used to investigate the effects of injury mechanism, injury speed, and cord displacement magnitude, on the ensuing cascade of biological damage in the cord. However, due to its small size, experimental observations have largely been limited to the gross response of the cord. To properly understand the relationship between mechanical stimulus and biological damage, more information is needed about how the constituent tissues of the cord (i.e., gray and white matter) respond to injurious stimuli. To address this limitation, we developed a novel magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-compatible test apparatus that can impose either a contusion-type or dislocation-type acute cervical SCI in a rodent model and facilitate MR-imaging of the cervical spinal cord in a 7 T MR scanner. In this study, we present the experimental performance parameters of the MR rig. Utilizing cadaveric specimens and static radiographs, we report contusion magnitude accuracy that for a desired 1.8 mm injury, a nominal 1.78 mm injury (SD = 0.12 mm) was achieved. High-speed video analysis was employed to determine the injury speeds for both mechanisms and were found to be 1147 mm/s (SD = 240 mm/s) and 184 mm/s (SD = 101 mm/s) for contusion and dislocation injuries, respectively. Furthermore, we present qualitative pilot data from a cadaveric trial, employing the MR rig, to show the expected results from future studies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomechanical EngineeringSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207