MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155888093 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e31815b7e6b

Clip Compression Model Is Useful for Thoracic Spinal Cord Injuries

2007· article· en· W2155888093 on OpenAlexaff
Peter C. Poon, Dimpy Gupta, Molly S. Shoichet, Charles H. Tator

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpinal cord injuryLaminectomySpinal cordSpinal cord compressionThoracic vertebraeAnesthesiaCordCompression (physics)SurgeryLumbarLumbar vertebrae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Experimental investigation of an acute thoracic spinal cord injury model in rats involving acute clip compression that simulates human injury. OBJECTIVE: To assess the dose-response of this model for the relationship between the force of injury on the rat thoracic spinal cord and histological and functional outcome measures. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Acute extradural clip compression injury has been a reliable model for producing acute experimental cervical spinal cord injury; however, this model has not been formally evaluated with dose-response curves for acute injury of the thoracic spinal cord. METHODS: After laminectomy at T2 in Sprague-Dawley rats, a modified aneurysm clip exerting a closing force of 20, 26, or 35 g was applied extradurally around the spinal cord at T2, and then rapidly released with cord compression persisting for 1 minute. These forces were selected to simulate acute compression injuries of mild to moderate, moderate, and moderate to severe degrees, respectively (n = 8/group). Motor activity was assessed weekly for 4 weeks with the Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan (BBB) open field locomotor test. The injured spinal cord was then examined histologically including quantification of cavitation. RESULTS: A significant main effect was observed for clip force and BBB score (F(2,20) = 5.42, P = 0.013). For 4 weeks after injury, the BBB scores for the 20 g and 35 g clip injury groups were significantly different (P < 0.05). The cavitation volume at 4 weeks was directly proportional to the severity of injury: the 20 g group had significantly smaller cavities than the 35 g group (P < 0.05), and the cavitation volume correlated with the BBB scores. CONCLUSION: The rat thoracic cord clip compression model is a reproducible, clinically relevant spinal cord injury model. This is the first time that the force of clip compression injury in the rat thoracic cord has been correlated with both functional and histologic outcome measures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.131
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.362 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations135
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207