Recovery of Peripheral Versus Central Nerves Identified by Saccadic Velocity After Abducens Neuropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The abducens is the motor nerve with the most substantial course, both within and outside the brain and it innervates only one muscle. Sixth nerve palsy affords an opportunity to compare recovery after central versus peripheral nerve damage by assessing the dynamics of abduction. Horizontal saccade peak velocities and durations in 14 patients with unilateral peripheral sixth nerve palsies (5 acute, 9 chronic) are compared with those in 5 patients with central sixth nerve palsies (2 acute, 3 chronic) and with those in 10 normal subjects. Acutely, abducting saccades in the paretic eye were slow in both central and peripheral palsies, as anticipated from weakness of the lateral rectus muscle. In chronic central palsies, abducting saccadic velocities remained reduced, but in chronic peripheral palsies, they increased to normal within the limited range of excursion. The chronically damaged peripheral nerve behaves like a high-pass filter in transmitting phasic velocity commands, whereas tonic position commands remain defective, accounting for limited abduction but normal velocities within the range of duction. In chronic central (fascicular) palsies, saccade velocities remain reduced. Impaired conduction from damage to central myelin or axons is more persistent in central palsies, consistent with limited regeneration within the brain. Recording of saccade velocities may aid the distinction of fascicular from peripheral palsies. Saccade speed is repaired in peripheral palsies, probably by remyelination, and perhaps also by central monocular adaptation of innervation selectively to the paretic eye in order to drive both eyes rapidly and simultaneously to a target in the paretic field of motion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".