MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110804099 · doi:10.1109/tnsre.2006.881592

Locomotor-Related Networks in the Lumbosacral Enlargement of the Adult Spinal Cat: Activation Through Intraspinal Microstimulation

2006· article· en· W2110804099 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa Guevremont, Chiara Renzi, Jonathan Norton, Jan Kowalczewski, R P Saigal, Vivian K. Mushahwar

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTonic (physiology)MicrostimulationLumbosacral jointSpinal cordStimulationNeuroscienceMedicineHindlimbDepolarizationAnatomyBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is commonly accepted that locomotor-related neuronal circuitry resides in the lumbosacral spinal cord. Pharmacological agents, epidural electrical stimulation, and sensory stimulation can be used to activate these instrinsic networks in in vitro neonatal rat and in vivo cat preparations. In this study, we investigated the use of low-level tonic intraspinal microstimulation (ISMS) as a means of activating spinal locomotor networks in adult cats with complete spinal transections. Trains of low-amplitude electrical pulses were delivered to the spinal cord via groups of fine microwires implanted in the ventral horns of the lumbosacral enlargement. In contrast to published reports, tonic ISMS applied through microwires in the caudal regions of the lumbosacral enlargement (L7-S1) was more effective in eliciting alternating movements in the hindlimbs than stimulation in the rostral regions. Possible mechanisms of action of tonic ISMS include depolarization of locally oscillating networks in the lumbosacral cord, backfiring of primary afferents, or activation of propriospinal neurons.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations65
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation EngineeringSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207