Corticospinal Regeneration into Lumbar Grey Matter Correlates with Locomotor Recovery after Complete Spinal Cord Transection and Repair with Peripheral Nerve Grafts, Fibroblast Growth Factor 1, Fibrin Glue, and Spinal Fusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge of which tracts are essential for the recovery of locomotor function in rats after repair is unknown. To assess the mechanism of recovery, we examined the correlation between functional recovery and axonal regeneration. All rats underwent complete cord transection and repair with peripheral nerves, fibroblast growth factor 1, fibrin glue, and spinal fixation. Repaired rats recovered both motor-evoked potentials recorded at the lumbar level and locomotor function. Cord retransection rostral to the repair abolished the recovery, indicating improvement was due to long tract regeneration. To determine which long tracts correlated with recovery, a novel technique of simultaneous bidirectional axonal tracing and immunohistochemical examination of axonal type was used to quantitate the regeneration of corticospinal, rubrospinal, reticulospinal, vestibulospinal, raphespinal, propriospinal, serotonergic, and calcitonin gene-related peptide containing axons. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed recovery of function correlated only with regeneration of corticospinal axons into the gray matter of the lumbar spinal cord (R = 0.977, p < 0.02). For the first time, we show that regeneration of the corticospinal tract into the lumbar gray matter is a mechanism of functional locomotor recovery after complete cord transection and repair.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".