MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Recovery of Locomotion After Spinal Cord Injury: Some Facts and Mechanisms

2011· review· en· W2164994619 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Neuroscience · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité de MontréalCanadian Institutes of Health Research
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFordham University
KeywordsCentral pattern generatorNeuroscienceSpinal cordSpinal cord injurySensory systemHindlimbReflexPsychologyBiologyMedicineAnatomyRhythm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After spinal cord injury (SCI), various sensorimotor functions can recover, ranging from simple spinal reflexes to more elaborate motor patterns, such as locomotion. Locomotor recovery after complete spinalization (complete SCI) must depend on the presence of spinal circuitry capable of generating the complex sequential activation of various leg muscles. This is achieved by an intrinsic spinal circuitry, termed the central pattern generator (CPG), working in conjunction with sensory feedback from the legs. After SCI, different changes in cellular and circuit properties occur spontaneously and can be promoted by pharmacological, electrical, or rehabilitation strategies. After partial SCI, hindlimb locomotor recovery can result from regeneration or sprouting of spared pathways, but also from mechanisms observed after complete SCI, namely changes within the intrinsic spinal circuitry and sensory inputs.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.330 · 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