Serum MicroRNAs Reflect Injury Severity in a Large Animal Model of Thoracic Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Therapeutic development for spinal cord injury is hindered by the difficulty in conducting clinical trials, which to date have relied solely on functional outcome measures for patient enrollment, stratification, and evaluation. Biological biomarkers that accurately classify injury severity and predict neurologic outcome would represent a paradigm shift in the way spinal cord injury clinical trials could be conducted. MicroRNAs have emerged as attractive biomarker candidates due to their stability in biological fluids, their phylogenetic similarities, and their tissue specificity. Here we characterized a porcine model of spinal cord injury using a combined behavioural, histological, and molecular approach. We performed next-generation sequencing on microRNAs in serum samples collected before injury and then at 1, 3, and 5 days post injury. We identified 58, 21, 9, and 7 altered miRNA after severe, moderate, and mild spinal cord injury, and SHAM surgery, respectively. These data were combined with behavioural and histological analysis. Overall miRNA expression at 1 and 3 days post injury strongly correlates with outcome measures at 12 weeks post injury. The data presented here indicate that serum miRNAs are promising candidates as biomarkers for the evaluation of injury severity for spinal cord injury or other forms of traumatic, acute, neurologic injury.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".