Brief Electrical Stimulation Accelerates Axon Regeneration in the Peripheral Nervous System and Promotes Sensory Axon Regeneration in the Central Nervous System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Injured peripheral but not central nerves regenerate their axons but functional recovery is often poor. We demonstrate that prolonged periods of axon separation from targets and Schwann cell denervation eliminate regenerative capacity in the peripheral nervous system (PNS). A substantial delay of 4 weeks for all regenerating axons to cross a site of repair of sectioned nerve contributes to the long period of separation. Findings that 1h 20Hz bipolar electrical stimulation accelerates axon outgrowth across the repair site and the downstream reinnervation of denervated muscles in rats and human patients, provides a new and exciting method to improve functional recovery after nerve injuries. Drugs that elevate neuronal cAMP and activate PKA promote axon outgrowth in vivo and in vitro, mimicking the electrical stimulation effect. Rapid expression of neurotrophic factors and their receptors and then of growth associated proteins thereafter via cAMP, is the likely mechanism by which electrical stimulation accelerates axon outgrowth from the site of injury in both peripheral and central nervous systems.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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".