Sensorimotor plasticity after spinal cord injury: a longitudinal and translational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The objective was to track and compare the progression of neuroplastic changes in a large animal model and humans with spinal cord injury. Methods: A total of 37 individuals with acute traumatic spinal cord injury were followed over time (1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-injury) with repeated neurophysiological assessments. Somatosensory and motor evoked potentials were recorded in the upper extremities above the level of injury. In a reverse-translational approach, similar neurophysiological techniques were examined in a porcine model of thoracic spinal cord injury. Twelve Yucatan mini-pigs underwent a contusive spinal cord injury at T10 and tracked with somatosensory and motor evoked potentials assessments in the fore- and hind limbs pre- (baseline, post-laminectomy) and post-injury (10 min, 3 h, 12 weeks). Results: In both humans and pigs, the sensory responses in the cranial coordinates of upper extremities/forelimbs progressively increased from immediately post-injury to later time points. Motor responses in the forelimbs increased immediately after experimental injury in pigs, remaining elevated at 12 weeks. In humans, motor evoked potentials were significantly higher at 1-month (and remained so at 1 year) compared to normative values. Conclusions: Despite notable differences between experimental models and the human condition, the brain's response to spinal cord injury is remarkably similar between humans and pigs. Our findings further underscore the utility of this large animal model in translational spinal cord injury research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".