Brief electrical stimulation after facial nerve transection and neurorrhaphy: A randomized prospective animal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have examined the effects of brief electrical stimulation (BES) on nerve regeneration, with some suggesting that BES accelerates facial nerve recovery. However, the facial nerve outcome measurement in these studies has not been precise or accurate. The objective of this study is to assess the effect of BES on accelerating facial nerve functional recovery from a transection injury in the rat model. METHODS: A prospective randomized animal study using a rat model was performed. Two groups of 9 rats underwent facial nerve surgery. Both group 1 and 2 underwent facial nerve transection and repair at the main trunk of the nerve, with group 2 additionally receiving BES on post-operative day 0 for 1 h using an implantable stimulation device. Primary outcome was measured using a laser curtain model, which measured amplitude of whisking at 2, 4, and 6 weeks post-operatively. RESULTS: At week 2, the average amplitude observed for group 1 was 4.4°. Showing a statistically significant improvement over group 1, the group 2 mean was 14.0° at 2 weeks post-operatively (p = 0.0004). At week 4, group 1 showed improvement having an average of 9.7°, while group 2 remained relatively unchanged with an average of 12.8°. Group 1 had an average amplitude of 13.63° at 6-weeks from surgery. Group 2 had a similar increase in amplitude with an average of 15.8°. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups at 4 and 6 weeks after facial nerve surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to use an implantable stimulator for serial BES following neurorrhaphy in a validated animal model. Results suggest performing BES after facial nerve transection and neurorrhaphy at the main trunk of the facial nerve is associated with accelerated whisker movement in a rat model compared with a control group.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".