Plasticity of connections underlying locomotor recovery after central and/or peripheral lesions in the adult mammals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review discusses some aspects of plasticity of connections after spinal injury in adult animal models as a basis for functional recovery of locomotion. After reviewing some pitfalls that must be avoided when claiming functional recovery and the importance of a conceptual framework for the control of locomotion, locomotor recovery after spinal lesions, mainly in cats, is summarized. It is concluded that recovery is partly due to plastic changes within the existing spinal locomotor networks. Locomotor training appears to change the excitability of simple reflex pathways as well as more complex circuitry. The spinal cord possesses an intrinsic capacity to adapt to lesions of central tracts or peripheral nerves but, as a rule, adaptation to lesions entails changes at both spinal and supraspinal levels. A brief summary of the spinal capacity of the rat, mouse and human to express spinal locomotor patterns is given, indicating that the concepts derived mainly from work in the cat extend to other adult mammals. It is hoped that some of the issues presented will help to evaluate how plasticity of existing connections may combine with and potentiate treatments designed to promote regeneration to optimize remaining motor functions.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".