Comparison of Motor-Evoked Potentials Versus Somatosensory-Evoked Potentials as Early Indicators of Neural Compromise in Rat Model of Spinal Cord Compression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled study comparing the efficacy of intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEPs) versus transcranial motor-evoked potentials (TcMEPs) as early indicators of neural compromise and predictors of postoperative function in a rat model of spinal cord compression. OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative efficacy of SSEPs and TcMEPs to detect spinal cord compromise and predict postoperative functional deficit after spinal cord compression. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is controversy regarding the efficacy of SSEPs versus TcMEPs to detect intraoperative spinal cord compromise and predict functional outcomes. Previous trials provide some guidance as to the role of each modality in spinal cord monitoring but randomized controlled trials, which are not feasible in humans, are lacking. METHODS: Twenty-four adult male Wistar rats were evenly divided into three experimental groups and one control group. The experimental groups were determined according to the length of time that 100% TcMEP signal loss was maintained: 0, 5, or 15 minutes. All animals had standardized preoperative functional testing. Spinal cord compromise was initiated utilizing a validated protocol, which involved compression via a balloon catheter introduced into the thoracic sublaminar space. Both SSEPs and TcMEPs were recorded during cord compression for each experimental group. Functional behavioral testing using two validated methods (tilt and modified Tarlov) was repeated 24 hours after termination of spinal cord compression. Post hoc, animals were redistributed into two functional subgroups, noncompromised and compromised, for statistical analysis. RESULTS: TcMEPs consistently detected spinal cord compromise either in advance of or at the same time as SSEPs; however, the delay in SSEP response was not significant for cases when compromised postoperative function resulted. Both SSEP and TcMEP amplitude recovery correlated well with postoperative functional scores. CONCLUSION: TcMEPs are more sensitive to spinal cord compromise than SSEPs, but the recovery profiles of both SSEP and TcMEP amplitudes are good predictors of postoperative function. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
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 | 0.000 | 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".