Efficacy of Rehabilitative Experience Declines with Time after Focal Ischemic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To maximize the effectiveness of rehabilitative therapies after stroke, it is critical to determine when the brain is most responsive (i.e., plastic) to sensorimotor experience after injury and to focus such efforts within this period. Here, we compared the efficacy of 5 weeks of enriched rehabilitation (ER) initiated at 5 d (ER5), ER14, or ER30 after focal ischemia, as judged by functional outcome and neuromorphological change. ER5 provided marked improvement in skilled forelimb reaching ability and ladder-rung- and narrow-beam-walking tasks and attenuated the stroke-induced reliance on the unaffected forepaw for postural support. ER14 provided improvement to a somewhat lesser extent, whereas recovery was diminished after ER30 such that motor function did not differ from ischemic animals exposed to social housing. To examine potential neural substrates of the improved function, we examined dendritic morphology in the undamaged motor cortex because our previous work (Biernaskie and Corbett, 2001) suggested that recovery was associated with enhanced dendritic growth in this region. ER5 increased the number of branches and complexity of layer V neurons compared with both social housing and control animals. Dendritic arbor after ER14 (although increased) and ER30 did not differ from those exposed to social housing. These data suggest that the poststroke brain displays heightened sensitivity to rehabilitative experience early after the stroke but declines with time. These findings have important implications for rehabilitation of stroke patients, many of whom experience considerable delays before therapy is initiated.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".