Ankle kinematics to evaluate functional recovery in crushed rat sciatic nerve
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peripheral nerve researchers frequently use the rat sciatic nerve crush model in order to test different therapeutic approaches. The purpose of this study was to determine the sequence of changes after an axonotmetic injury by means of a biomechanical model of the foot and ankle, and compare them with walking track analysis, over a fixed period of time. A kinematic analysis program was used to acquire ankle motion data for further analysis. Although repeated measures analysis of variance showed significant cumulative changes induced by the crush lesion for both ankle kinematic parameters and sciatic functional index, post-hoc multiple comparisons by the Student-Neuman-Keuls test revealed significant differences between week 0 and week 8 only for ankle kinematics. These results are of importance in showing the superiority of ankle kinematics in detecting small biomechanical deficits related to hyperexcitability of the plantarflexor muscles, in contrast with walking track analysis, which showed full motor functional recovery 8 weeks after the crush lesion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it