MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322751601 · doi:10.1097/scs.0000000000000783

Influence of Insulin-like Growth Factor I on Nerve Regeneration Using Allografts

2014· article· en· W2322751601 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Rahim Mohammadi, Abdolrahim Saadati

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Craniofacial Surgery · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsMedicineSciatic nerveRegeneration (biology)Gastrocnemius muscleSalineSurgeryGluteal musclesAnesthesiaInsulin-like growth factorAnatomyInternal medicineGrowth factorSkeletal muscleReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effects of insulin-like growth factor I (IGF I) on peripheral nerve regeneration was studied using allografts in a rat sciatic nerve model. Thirty male white Wistar rats were divided into 3 experimental groups (n = 10) randomly: normal control group (NC), allograft group (ALLO), and IGF I-treated group (ALLO/IGF). In the NC group, the left sciatic nerve was exposed through a gluteal muscle incision and, after homeostasis, the muscle was sutured. In the ALLO group, the left sciatic nerve was exposed through a gluteal muscle incision and transected proximal to the tibioperoneal bifurcation where a 10-mm segment was excised. The same procedure was performed in the ALLO/IGF group. The harvested nerves of the rats of the ALLO group were served as allograft for the ALLO/IGF group and vice versa. The NC and ALLO groups received 10 μL of sterile phosphate buffered saline intraperitoneally once a day for 1 week, and the ALLO/IGF group received 10 μL of IGF I (100 ng/kg per day) intraperitoneally once a day for 1 week. Behavioral testing, sciatic nerve functional study and the gastrocnemius muscle mass showed earlier regeneration of axons in the ALLO/IGF group than in the ALLO group (P < 0.05). Administration of IGF I could accelerate functional recovery after nerve allografting in the sciatic nerve and may have clinical implications for the surgical management of patients after facial nerve transection.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations14
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Craniofacial SurgerySame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207