Tensile Strength of Healing Peripheral Nerves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the time required for a nerve to gain sufficient strength to withstand normal physiologic forces of joint motion is unknown, typically nerve repairs are protected up to 3 weeks postoperatively. The authors investigated the mechanical strength of a nerve repair as a function of time. Fifty adult Sprague-Dawley rats underwent sciatic nerve division and repair, and were sacrificed in groups of 10 at 0, 1, 2, 4, and 8 weeks. Repaired nerves were then mechanically loaded at 5 mm/min to failure. Gapping across the repair site was captured on high-resolution video. The contralateral sciatic nerve served as a control. A significant increase in tensile strength was gained between 0 and 1 week and between 2 and 4 weeks. Healing nerves achieved 63 percent of the strength of the control by 8 weeks. Controls showed no gain in strength over the testing period. Gapping occurred at lower forces at all time increments. From 0 to 1 week, a significant increase in load necessary to produce gapping was found, which did not increase significantly again until 8 weeks. These results may have implications for postoperative rehabilitation protocols in patients with nerve injuries.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".