MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765304491 · doi:10.1152/jn.00575.2017

Retracing your footsteps: developmental insights to spinal network plasticity following injury

2017· review· en· W2765304491 on OpenAlexafffund
Céline Jean-Xavier, Simon A. Sharples, Kyle A. Mayr, Adam P Lognon, Patrick J. Whelan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta Innovates - Health SolutionsGovernment of Canada
KeywordsNeuroscienceSpinal cordSpinal cord injurySpasticityBiologyPsychologyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During development of the spinal cord, a precise interaction occurs between descending projections and sensory afferents, with spinal networks that lead to expression of coordinated motor output. In the rodent, during the last embryonic week, motor output first occurs as regular bursts of spontaneous activity, progressing to stochastic patterns of episodes that express bouts of coordinated rhythmic activity perinatally. Locomotor activity becomes functionally mature in the 2nd postnatal wk and is heralded by the onset of weight-bearing locomotion on the 8th and 9th postnatal day. Concomitantly, there is a maturation of intrinsic properties and key conductances mediating plateau potentials. In this review, we discuss spinal neuronal excitability, descending modulation, and afferent modulation in the developing rodent spinal cord. In the adult, plastic mechanisms are much more constrained but become more permissive following neurotrauma, such as spinal cord injury. We discuss parallel mechanisms that contribute to maturation of network function during development to mechanisms of pathological plasticity that contribute to aberrant motor patterns, such as spasticity and clonus, which emerge following central 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.212
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207