Growth Factor-Stimulated Generation of New Cortical Tissue and Functional Recovery after Stroke Damage to the Motor Cortex of Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies suggest that proliferation in the adult forebrain subventricular zone increases in response to a forebrain stroke and intraventricular infusions of growth factors enhance this response. The potential for growth factor infusions to regenerate the damaged motor cortex and promote recovery of motor function after stroke has not been examined. Here, we report that intraventricular infusions of epidermal growth factor and erythropoietin together, but not individually, promote substantial regeneration of the damaged cerebral cortex and reverse impairments in spontaneous and skilled motor tasks, in a rat model of stroke. Cortical regeneration and functional recovery occurred even when growth factor administration was delayed for up to 7 days after the stroke-induced lesion. Cell tracking demonstrated the contribution of neural precursors originating in the forebrain subventricular zone to the regenerated cortex. Strikingly, removal of the regenerated cortical tissue reversed the growth factor-induced functional recovery. These findings reveal that specific combinations of growth factors can mobilize endogenous adult neural stem cells to promote cortical tissue re-growth and functional recovery after stroke.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".