Intraspinal Stimulation Caudal to Spinal Cord Transections in Rats. Testing the Propriospinal Hypothesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many laboratories have reported the successful regeneration of neurons across damaged portions of the spinal cord. Associated improvements in hindlimb locomotor movements have been attributed to the formation of functional neuronal connections with the locomotor central pattern generator (CPG). However, regenerating axons generally extend no more than 10 mm caudal to the lesion sites, terminating about 20 mm short of the lumbar segments thought to contain the CPG. It has therefore tacitly been assumed that the locomotor improvements arose from activation of propriospinal neurons relaying excitation to the CPG. Here we report a test of this assumption, which we call the propriospinal hypothesis. Intraspinal microstimulation (ISMS) was used to activate the putative propriospinal relay neurons. Approximately 2-3 wk after complete spinal cord transection at T8-T9 in rats, an array of six Pt-Ir microwires was chronically implanted in the intermediate and ventral gray matter of T10-T12 segments. ISMS pulse trains with amplitudes of 0.8-0.9 times threshold for activating axial muscles were delivered during open-field locomotor tests (BBB). ISMS significantly increased BBB scores over control tests, but did not produce limb coordination and weight bearing sufficient for locomotion. These results support the main assumption of the propriospinal hypothesis: that neuronal activity elicited in thoracic spinal segments caudal to a complete spinal cord transection may propagate caudally and activate the locomotor CPG.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".