MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807488717 · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-27101-0

Post-stroke kinematic analysis in rats reveals similar reaching abnormalities as humans

2018· article· en· W2807488717 on OpenAlexafffund
Gustavo Balbinot, Clarissa Pedrini Schuch, Matthew S. Jeffers, Matthew W. McDonald, Jessica M. Livingston‐Thomas, Dale Corbett

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsHeart and Stroke FoundationUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationKinematicsStroke (engine)ElbowForelimbRehabilitationMedicineWristUpper limbPhysical therapyNeurosciencePsychologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A coordinated pattern of multi-muscle activation is essential to produce efficient reaching trajectories. Disruption of these coordinated activation patterns, termed synergies, is evident following stroke and results in reaching deficits; however, preclinical investigation of this phenomenon has been largely ignored. Furthermore, traditional outcome measures of post-stroke performance seldom distinguish between impairment restitution and compensatory movement strategies. We sought to address this by using kinematic analysis to characterize reaching movements and kinematic synergies of rats performing the Montoya staircase task, before and after ischemic stroke. Synergy was defined as the simultaneous movement of the wrist and other proximal forelimb joints (i.e. shoulder, elbow) during reaching. Following stroke, rats exhibited less individuation between joints, moving the affected limb more as a unit. Moreover, abnormal flexor synergy characterized by concurrent elbow flexion, shoulder adduction, and external rotation was evident. These abnormalities ultimately led to inefficient and unstable reaching trajectories, and decreased reaching performance (pellets retrieved). The observed reaching abnormalities in this preclinical stroke model are similar to those classically observed in humans. This highlights the potential of kinematic analysis to better align preclinical and clinical outcome measures, which is essential for developing future rehabilitation strategies following stroke.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations38
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207