MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973321467 · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-49328-1

Functional organization of motor networks in the lumbosacral spinal cord of non-human primates

2019· article· en· W2973321467 on OpenAlexafffund
Amirali Toossi, Dirk G. Everaert, Steve I. Perlmutter, Vivian K. Mushahwar

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeFondation pour la Recherche MédicaleGovernment of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta InnovatesMedtronic
KeywordsSpinal cordLumbosacral jointNeuroscienceFunctional organizationAnatomyBiologyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Implantable spinal-cord-neuroprostheses aiming to restore standing and walking after paralysis have been extensively studied in animal models (mainly cats) and have shown promising outcomes. This study aimed to take a critical step along the clinical translation path of these neuroprostheses, and investigated the organization of the neural networks targeted by these implants in a non-human primate. This was accomplished by advancing a microelectrode into various locations of the lumbar enlargement of the spinal cord, targeting the ventral horn of the gray matter. Microstimulation in these locations produced a variety of functional movements in the hindlimb. The resulting functional map of the spinal cord in monkeys was found to have a similar overall organization along the length of the spinal cord to that in cats. This suggests that the human spinal cord may also be organized similarly. The obtained spinal cord maps in monkeys provide important knowledge that will guide the very first testing of these implants in humans.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations25
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207