MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118841107 · doi:10.3791/51602

Compensatory Limb Use and Behavioral Assessment of Motor Skill Learning Following Sensorimotor Cortex Injury in a Mouse Model of Ischemic Stroke

2014· article· en· W2118841107 on OpenAlexaff
Abigail L. Kerr, Kelly A. Tennant

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visualized Experiments · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsTask (project management)Physical medicine and rehabilitationNeuroscienceStroke (engine)Motor learningSet (abstract data type)PsychologyMotor skillMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mouse models have become increasingly popular in the field of behavioral neuroscience, and specifically in studies of experimental stroke. As models advance, it is important to develop sensitive behavioral measures specific to the mouse. The present protocol describes a skilled motor task for use in mouse models of stroke. The Pasta Matrix Reaching Task functions as a versatile and sensitive behavioral assay that permits experimenters to collect accurate outcome data and manipulate limb use to mimic human clinical phenomena including compensatory strategies (i.e., learned non-use) and focused rehabilitative training. When combined with neuroanatomical tools, this task also permits researchers to explore the mechanisms that support behavioral recovery of function (or lack thereof) following stroke. The task is both simple and affordable to set up and conduct, offering a variety of training and testing options for numerous research questions concerning functional outcome following injury. Though the task has been applied to mouse models of stroke, it may also be beneficial in studies of functional outcome in other upper extremity injury models.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.394 · 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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visualized ExperimentsSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207