MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessment of behavioural recovery following spinal cord injury in rats

2000· review· en· W2084088703 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

VenueEuropean Journal of Neuroscience · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorizationSpinal cord injuryPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationNeurosciencePsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)Spinal cordMedicineComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Behavioural recovery is one of the primary goals of therapeutic intervention in animal models of disease. It is necessary, therefore, to have the means with which to quantify pertinent behavioural changes in experimental animals. Nevertheless, the number and diversity of behavioural measures which have been used to assess recovery after experimental interventions often makes it difficult to compare results between studies. The present review attempts to integrate and categorize the wide variety of behavioural assessments used to measure recovery in spinal-injured rats. These categories include endpoint measures, kinematic measures, kinetic measurements, and electrophysiological measurements. Within this categorization, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each type of measurement. Finally, we make some recommendations regarding the principles for a comprehensive behavioural analysis after experimental spinal cord injury in rats.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.227
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.250 · 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