Spinal cord reconstruction using NeuroGel™ implants and functional recovery after chronic injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is currently a lack of effective ways to achieve functional tissue repair of the chronically injured spinal cord. We investigated the potential of using NeuroGel, a biocompatible polymer hydrogel, to induce a reconstruction of the rat spinal cord after chronic compression-produced injury. NeuroGel was inserted 3 months after a severe injury into the post-traumatic lesion cavity. Rats were placed in an enriched environment and the functional deficits were measured using the BBB rating scale. A significant improvement in the mean BBB scores was observed. Rats without enriched environment and severely injured rats with an enriched environment alone showed no improvement; however, 7 months after reconstructive surgery using NeuroGel, a reparative neural tissue had formed within the polymer gel that included myelinated axons and dendro-dendritic contacts. NeuroGel implantation into a chronic spinal cord injury therefore resulted in tissue reconstruction and functional improvement, suggesting that such an approach may have therapeutic value in the repair of focal lesions in humans.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".