MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ipsilesional Motor Cortex Plasticity Participates in Spontaneous Hindlimb Recovery after Lateral Hemisection of the Thoracic Spinal Cord in the Rat

2018· article· en· W2897805052 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew Brown, Marina Martinez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHindlimbNeuroscienceSpinal cordSpontaneous recoveryMotor cortexNeuroplasticityPrimary motor cortexSpinal cord injuryMotor areaAnatomyPsychologyMedicineStimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After an incomplete spinal cord injury (SCI) spontaneous motor recovery can occur in mammals, but the underlying neural substrates remain poorly understood. The motor cortex is crucial for skilled motor learning and the voluntary control of movement and is known to reorganize after cortical injury to promote recovery. Motor cortex plasticity has also been shown to parallel the recovery of forelimb function after cervical SCI, but whether cortical plasticity participates in hindlimb recovery after SCI remains unresolved. Using intracortical microstimulation (ICMS) mapping, behavioral and cortical inactivation techniques in the female Long–Evans rat, we evaluated the spontaneous cortical mechanisms of hindlimb motor recovery 1–5 weeks after lateral hemisection of the thoracic (T8) spinal cord that ablated the crossed corticospinal tract (CST) from the contralesional motor cortex while sparing the majority of the CST from the ipsilesional motor cortex. Hemisection initially impaired hindlimb motor function bilaterally but significant recovery occurred during the first 3 weeks. ICMS revealed time-dependent changes in motor cortex organization, characterized by a chronic abolishment of hindlimb motor representation in the contralesional motor cortex and the development of transient bilateral hindlimb representation in the ipsilesional motor cortex 3 weeks after hemisection, when significant behavioral recovery occurred. Consistently, reversible inactivation of the ipsilesional, but not the contralesional motor cortex, during skilled ladder walking 3 weeks after hemisection reinstated deficits in both hindlimbs. These findings indicate that the ipsilesional motor cortex transiently reorganizes after lateral hemisection of the thoracic spinal cord to support recovery of hindlimb motor function. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Partial motor recovery can occur after an incomplete spinal cord injury and is hypothesized to result from the reorganization of spared descending motor pathways. The motor cortex is crucial for the control of voluntary movement and contains topographical movement representations (motor maps) that are highly plastic. We examined the organization of hindlimb motor maps bilaterally after a lateral hemisection of the spinal cord to show that while motor maps are abolished in the deefferented cortex, the spared ipsilesional cortex transiently reorganizes to gain a representation of the affected hindlimb after injury that relates to recovery. This finding demonstrates that plasticity in the ipsilesional motor cortex at early time points after spinal cord hemisection is initially important to support motor recovery.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations54
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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