Regenerating Nerve Fiber Innervation of Extraocular Muscles and Motor Functional Changes Following Oculomotor Nerve Injuries at Different Sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present study, the oculomotor nerves were sectioned at the proximal (subtentorial) and distal (superior orbital fissure) ends and repaired. After 24 weeks, vestibulo-ocular reflex evaluation confirmed that the regenerating nerve fibers following oculomotor nerve injury in the superior orbital fissure had a high level of specificity for innervating extraocular muscles. The level of functional recovery of extraocular muscles in rats in the superior orbital fissure injury group was remarkably superior over that in rats undergoing oculomotor nerve injuries at the proximal end (subtentorium). Horseradish peroxidase retrograde tracing through the right superior rectus muscle showed that the distribution of neurons in the nucleus of the oculomotor nerve was directly associated with the injury site, and that crude fibers were badly damaged. The closer the site of injury of the oculomotor nerve was to the extraocular muscle, the better the recovery of neurological function was. The mechanism may be associated with the aberrant number of regenerated nerve fibers passing through the injury site.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".