Guided Regeneration of Nerve Repair by Means of Local Administration of Insulin-Like Growth Factor I In Streptozotocin Induced Diabetes In Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim was to evaluate the effect of locally administered insulin-like growth factor (IGF I) on functional recovery of peripheral nerve in diabetic rats.Sixty male healthy white Wistar rats were divided into four experimental groups (n = 15), randomly: In transected group (TC), left sciatic nerve was transected and stumps were fixed in the adjacent muscle.In treatment group defect was bridged using a silicone conduit (SIL/IGF) and filled with 10 µL IGF I (100 ng/kg).In silicone graft group (SIL), the graft was filled with phosphate-buffered saline alone.In sham-operated group (SHAM), sciatic nerve was exposed and manipulated.Each group was subdivided into three subgroups of five animals each and regenerated nerve fibers were studied 4, 8 and 12 weeks after surgery.Behavioral testing, sciatic nerve functional study, gastrocnemius muscle mass and morphometric indices confirmed faster recovery of regenerated axons in SIL/IGF than in SIL group (p < 0.05).In immunohistochemistry, location of reactions to S-100 in SIL/IGF was clearly more positive than that in SIL group.When loaded in a silicone graft, IGF I accelerated and improved functional recovery and morphometric indices of sciatic nerve in diabetic rats.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".