MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082463733 · doi:10.1179/016164107x251781

Adaptive changes in the injured spinal cord and their role in promoting functional recovery

2008· review· en· W2082463733 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurological Research · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpinal cordNeuroscienceNeuroplasticityMechanism (biology)Spinal cord injuryMedicineSpontaneous recoveryCentral nervous systemBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although axons in the injured spinal cord are unable to regenerate, a modest recovery can often be found in both patients and animal models. One concept touted as a possible mechanism behind this recovery involves rearrangements in the brain and spinal cord, often referred to as plasticity. In the following review, centered around works from our laboratory, we will discuss plasticity throughout the entire central nervous system (CNS) induced by spinal cord injuries (SCIs) with an emphasis on sprouting of descending spinal tracts. Because this sprouting occurs spontaneously, it not only lends itself as a recovery mechanism, but also opens potential treatment avenues to promote further functional recovery. As such, various recent examples of approaches to pharmacologically promote plasticity within the spinal cord are discussed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.429
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.061 · 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