MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165102258 · doi:10.1109/tnsre.2010.2052832

Muscle Plasticity in Rat Following Spinal Transection and Chronic Intraspinal Microstimulation

2010· article· en· W2165102258 on OpenAlexaff
Jeremy Andrew Bamford, Charles T. Putman, Vivian K. Mushahwar

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsMicrostimulationStimulationSpinal cordTonic (physiology)MedicineMotor unitMotor unit recruitmentMyosinAnesthesiaAnatomySpinal cord injuryMuscle contractionNeuroscienceChemistryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicineElectromyographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intraspinal microstimulation (ISMS) employs electrical stimulation of the ventral grey matter to reactivate paralyzed skeletal muscle. This work evaluated the transformations in the quadriceps muscle that occurred following complete transection and chronic stimulation with ISMS or a standard nerve cuff (NCS). Stimulation was applied for 30 days, 4 h/day. Both methods induced significant increases in time-to-peak tension (ISMS 35%, NCS 25%) and half rise-time (ISMS 39%, NCS 25%) compared to intact controls (IC). Corresponding increases in type-IIA myosin heavy chain (MHC) and decreases in type-IID MHC were noted compared to IC. These results were unexpected because ISMS recruits motor units in a near-normal physiological order while NCS recruits motor units in a reversed order. Spinal cord transection and 30 days of stimulation did not alter either recruitment profile. The slope of the force recruitment curves obtained through ISMS following transection and 30 days of stimulation was similar to that obtained in intact animals, and 3.4-fold shallower than that obtained through NCS. The transformations observed in the current work are best explained by the near maximal level of motor unit recruitment, the total daily time of activity and the tonic nature of the stimulation paradigm.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations16
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation EngineeringSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207