MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Biomedical Engineering Strategies for Peripheral Nerve Repair: Surgical Applications, State of the Art, and Future Challenges

2011· review· en· W2052424792 on OpenAlexaff
Bryan J. Pfister, Tessa Gordon, Joseph R. Loverde, Arshneel Kochar, Susan E. Mackinnon, D. Kacy Cullen

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegeneration (biology)MedicinePeripheral nerveNerve injuryPeripheral nerve injuryNerve repairSurgeryNeuroscienceAnatomyPsychologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Damage to the peripheral nervous system is surprisingly common and occurs primarily from trauma or a complication of surgery. Although recovery of nerve function occurs in many mild injuries, outcomes are often unsatisfactory following severe trauma. Nerve repair and regeneration presents unique clinical challenges and opportunities, and substantial contributions can be made through the informed application of biomedical engineering strategies. This article reviews the clinical presentations and classification of nerve injuries, in addition to the state of the art for surgical decision-making and repair strategies. This discussion presents specific challenges that must be addressed to realistically improve the treatment of nerve injuries and promote widespread recovery. In particular, nerve defects a few centimeters in length use a sensory nerve autograft as the standard technique; however, this approach is limited by the availability of donor nerve and comorbidity associated with additional surgery. Moreover, we currently have an inadequate ability to noninvasively assess the degree of nerve injury and to track axonal regeneration. As a result, wait-and-see surgical decisions can lead to undesirable and less successful "delayed" repair procedures. In this fight for time, degeneration of the distal nerve support structure and target progresses, ultimately blunting complete functional recovery. Thus, the most pressing challenges in peripheral nerve repair include the development of tissue-engineered nerve grafts that match or exceed the performance of autografts, the ability to noninvasively assess nerve damage and track axonal regeneration, and approaches to maintain the efficacy of the distal pathway and targets during the regenerative process. Biomedical engineering strategies can address these issues to substantially contribute at both the basic and applied levels, improving surgical management and functional recovery following severe peripheral nerve injury.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations365
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Biomedical EngineeringSame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207