RATE AND DEPTH DEPENDENT EFFECTS ON DEMYELINATION AND BEHAVIOURAL DEFICIT FOLLOWING SPINAL CORD CONTUSION INJURY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Statement The mechanism of spinal cord injury varies across the human population and this may be important for the development of effective therapies. Therefore, detailed understanding of how variables such as impact velocity and depth affect cord tissue damage is important. Introduction Studies have shown an independent effect of impact velocity and depth on injury severity, thereby suggesting importance of the interaction between the two for spinal cord injury. This work examines both the individual and interactive effects of impact velocity and impact depth on demyelination, tissue sparing, and behavioural outcomes in the rat cervical spinal cord. It also aims to understand the contribution of the energy applied during impact, not only the impact factors. Decoupling the effects of these two impact parameters will help to describe the injury mechanism. Maximum principal strain has also been shown to be useful as a predictor for neural tissue damage in vivo and in finite element (FE) models. A better understanding of this relationship with experimental results may help to elucidate the mechanics of spinal cord injury. Methods In this study, 54 male Sprague-Dawley rats were given a contusion spinal cord injury at impact speeds of 8 mm/s, 80 mm/s, or 800 mm/s with depths of 0.9 mm or 1.5 mm. Animals recovered for 7 days followed by behavioural assessment and examination of the spinal cord tissue for demyelination and tissue sparing at 1 mm intervals, ±3 mm rostrocaudally to the epicentre. In parallel, a previously developed finite element model of the rat spinal cord was used to examine the resulting maximum principal strains in the spinal cord for correlations with histological and mechanical impact data. Results and discussion Impact depth was a consistent factor in predicting axonal damage, tissue sparing, and the resulting behavioural deficit. Increased impact velocity resulted in significantly higher impact energies and measureable tissue damage at the 1.5 mm impact depth, but not at the 0.9 mm impact depth and is best displayed by the percentage of axon damage at the injury epicentre. Linear correlation analysis with FEA strain showed significant (p≪0.001) correlations with axonal damage in the ventral (R2=0.86) and lateral (R2=0.74) regions of the spinal cord and with white matter (R2=0.90) and grey matter (R2=0.76) sparing. Discussion and Conclusion The difference in injury severity to velocity at different impact depths identifies the existence of threshold interactions between the two impact factors. Beyond this point incremental increases in either velocity or depth are more likely to result in significantly increased impact energy and thus tissue damage and functional impairment. The relationship between the impact depth and velocity of injury demonstrated a more rate sensitive response to spinal cord tissue damage at the deep (1.5 mm) impact depth than at the shallow (0.9 mm) impact depth. Impact velocity also became quickly less significant than impact depth in determining tissue damage further from the epicentre. Furthermore, the results shown by this work extend the research identifying significant correlations between maximum principal strain and neurological tissue damage.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".