Review of the UBC Porcine Model of Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) research has recently focused on the use of rat and mouse models for in vivo SCI experiments. Such small rodent SCI models are invaluable for the field, and much has been discovered about the biologic and physiologic aspects of SCI from these models. It has been difficult, however, to reproduce the efficacy of treatments found to produce neurologic benefits in rodent SCI models when these treatments are tested in human clinical trials. A large animal model may have advantages for translational research where anatomical, physiological, or genetic similarities to humans may be more relevant for pre-clinically evaluating novel therapies. Here, we review the work carried out at the University of British Columbia (UBC) on a large animal model of SCI that utilizes Yucatan miniature pigs. The UBC porcine model of SCI may be a useful intermediary in the pre-clinical testing of novel pharmacological treatments, cell-based therapies, and the "bedside back to bench" translation of human clinical observations, which require preclinical testing in an applicable animal model.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".