Walking Function After Cervical Contusion and Distraction Spinal Cord Injuries in Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines and compares the walking function in contusion and distraction spinal cord injury (SCI) mechanisms. Moderate contusion and distraction SCIs were surgically induced between C5 and C6 in Sprague-Dawley male rats. The CatWalk system was used to perform gait analysis of walkway walking. The ladder rung walking test was used to quantify skilled locomotor movements of ladder rung walking. It was found that the inter-paw coordination, paw support, front paw kinematics, hind paw kinematics, and skilled movements were significantly different before and after contusion and distraction. Step sequence duration, diagonal support, forelimb intensity, forelimb duty cycle, forelimb paw angle, and forelimb swing speed were more greatly affected in distraction than in contusion at 2 weeks post-injury, whereas hindlimb stand was more greatly affected in contusion than in distraction at 8 weeks post-injury. After 8 weeks post-injury, diagonal coupling-variation, girdle coupling-variation, ipsilateral coupling-mean, forelimb maximum contact at, forelimb intensity, forelimb paw angle, and number of forelimb misplacements recovered to normal in contusion but not in distraction, whereas step sequence duration, ipsilateral coupling-variation, forelimb stand, forelimb duty cycle, hindlimb swing duration, hindlimb swing speed, and number of forelimb slips recovered to normal in distraction but not in contusion. Some of the behavioral outcomes, but not the others, were linearly correlated with the histological outcomes. In conclusion, walking deficits and recovery can be affected by the type of common traumatic SCI.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".