Exposure to Acute Intermittent Hypoxia Augments Somatic Motor Function in Humans With Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neural plasticity may contribute to motor recovery following spinal cord injury (SCI). In rat models of SCI with respiratory impairment, acute intermittent hypoxia (AIH) strengthens synaptic inputs to phrenic motor neurons, thereby improving respiratory function by a mechanism known as respiratory long-term facilitation. Similar intermittent hypoxia-induced facilitation may be feasible in somatic motor pathways in humans. OBJECTIVE: Using a randomized crossover design, the authors tested the hypothesis that AIH increases ankle strength in people with incomplete SCI. METHODS: Ankle strength was measured in 13 individuals with chronic, incomplete SCI before and after AIH. Voluntary ankle strength was estimated using changes in maximum isometric ankle plantar flexion torque generation and plantar flexor electromyogram activity following 15 low oxygen exposures (Fio(2) = 0.09, 1-minute intervals). Results were compared with trials where subjects received sham exposure to room air. RESULTS: AIH increased plantar flexion torque by 82 ± 33% (P < .003) immediately following AIH and was sustained above baseline for more than 90 minutes (P < .007). Increased ankle plantar flexor electromyogram activity (P = .01) correlated with increased torque (r(2) = .5; P < .001). No differences in plantar flexion strength or electromyogram activity were observed in sham experiments. CONCLUSIONS: AIH elicits sustained increases in volitional somatic motor output in persons with chronic SCI. Thus, AIH has promise as a therapeutic tool to induce plasticity and enhance motor function in SCI patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".