Outcome Comparison of Nerve Transfer with Different Donor Nerves in a Rat Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The phrenic nerve and the contralateral seventh cervical (C7) nerve root are the most commonly used donor nerves in the treatment of total brachial plexus avulsion. The aim of this study was to determine if the phrenic nerve or the contralateral C7 nerve root yields a superior outcome for nerve transfer. METHODS: A total of 60 Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups. In Group A the phrenic nerve was used as the donor nerve; in Group B the contralateral C7 nerve root nerve was used as the donor nerve; in Group C the nerve was directly sutured. The results of behavioral assessment, electrophysiology, histology, nerve fiber count and muscle weight at 24 weeks postoperatively were recorded. RESULTS: Group A showed a faster recovery time compared to Group B; however Group B showed a better functional recovery at the final outcome assessment compared to Group A. CONCLUSION: The contralateral C7 nerve root was better as the donor nerve for nerve transfer in the treatment of total brachial plexus avulsion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".