Functional recovery following peripheral nerve injury in the transgenic <i>Thy1</i>‐<scp>GFP</scp> rat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transgenic mice have been previously used to assess nerve regeneration following peripheral nerve injury. However, mouse models are limited by their small caliber nerves, short nerve lengths, and their inability to fully participate during behavioral assessments. The transgenic Thy1 GFP rat is a novel transgenic rat model designed to assess regeneration following peripheral nerve injury. However, return of functional and behavioral recovery following nerve injury has not yet been evaluated in these rats. In this study, we ask whether differences in anatomy, recovery of locomotion, myological, and histomorphological measures exist between transgenic Thy1 GFP rats when compared to wild type (WT) Sprague Dawley rats following unilateral sciatic nerve injury. We found that both motor and sensory neuronal architecture, overground and skilled locomotion, muscle force, motor unit number estimation (MUNE) and wet muscle weights, and histomorphometric assessments are similar between both genetic phenotypes. Overall, these data support the use of the transgenic Thy1-GFP rat in experiments assessing functional and behavioral recovery following nerve injury and repair.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".