MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101356937 · doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.03.018

Functional effect of local administration of glial derived neurotrophic factor combined with inside-out artery graft on sciatic nerve regeneration in rat

2014· article· en· W2101356937 on OpenAlexaff
Nooshin Ghayemi, Amin Haghighat, Keyvan Amini, Rahim Mohammadi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Surgery · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersScience Foundation Ireland
KeywordsGlial cell line-derived neurotrophic factorSciatic nerveMedicineNeurotrophic factorsRegeneration (biology)SalineAnesthesiaPeripheral nerve injuryImmunohistochemistryAnatomySurgeryInternal medicineBiologyReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effect of local glial derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) on nerve regeneration was assessed. Eighty male Wistar rats were divided into four experimental groups (n = 20), randomly: In transected group left sciatic nerve was transected and stumps were fixed in adjacent muscle. In treatment group defect was bridged using an artery graft filled with 10 μL GDNF. In artery group graft was filled with phosphate-buffered saline. In normal control group sciatic nerve was exposed and manipulated. Each group was subdivided into four subgroups of five animals each and nerve fibers were studied in a 16-week period. Behavioral, functional, electrophysiological and gastrocnemius muscle mass findings and morphometric indices confirmed faster recovery of regenerated axons in IOAG/GDNF than in IOAG group (p < 0.05). Immunohistochemical reactions to S-100 in IOAG/GDNF were more positive than that in IOAG group. GDNF improved functional recovery and morphometric indices of sciatic nerve. It could be considered as an effective treatment for peripheral nerve repair in practice.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of SurgerySame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207