Muscle Plasticity in Rat Following Spinal Transection and Chronic Intraspinal Microstimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".