Effects of Subdural Monopolar Cortical Stimulation Paired With Rehabilitative Training on Behavioral and Neurophysiological Recovery After Cortical Ischemic Stroke in Adult Squirrel Monkeys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cortical stimulation (CS) combined with rehabilitative training (RT) has proven effective for enhancing poststroke functional recovery in rats, but human clinical trials have had mixed outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of CS/RT versus RT in a nonhuman primate model of cortical ischemic stroke. METHODS: Squirrel monkeys learned a pellet retrieval task, then received an infarct to the distal forelimb (DFL) representation of primary motor cortex. A subdural monopolar electrode was implanted over the spared DFL representation in dorsal premotor cortex (PMD). Seven weeks postinfarct, monkeys underwent 4 to 6 weeks of RT (n = 8) or CS/RT (n = 7; 100 Hz, cathodal current) therapy. Behavioral performance was assessed before and after infarct, prior to therapy, and 1 and 12 weeks posttherapy (follow-up). The primary outcome measure was motor performance at 1 week posttherapy. Secondary outcomes included follow-up performance at 12 weeks and treatment-related changes in neurophysiological maps of spared DFL representations. RESULTS: While postinfarct performance deficits were found in all monkeys, both groups demonstrated similar recovery profiles, with no difference in motor recovery between the RT and CS/RT groups. Posttherapy, PMD DFL area was significantly expanded in the RT group but not the CS/RT group. A significant relationship was found between motor recovery and DFL expansion in premotor cortex. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that the specific parameters utilized here were not optimal for promoting behavioral recovery in nonhuman primates. Though CS/RT has consistently shown efficacy in rat stroke models, the present finding has cautionary implications for translation of CS/RT therapy to clinical populations.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".