Recommendations for evaluation of bladder and bowel function in pre-clinical spinal cord injury research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: In order to encourage the inclusion of bladder and bowel outcome measures in preclinical spinal cord injury (SCI) research, this paper identifies and categorizes 1) fundamental, 2) recommended, 3) supplemental and 4) exploratory sets of outcome measures for pre-clinical assessment of bladder and bowel function with broad applicability to animal models of SCI.Methods: Drawing upon the collective research experience of autonomic physiologists and informed in consultation with clinical experts, a critical assessment of currently available bladder and bowel outcome measures (histological, biochemical, in vivo functional, ex vivo physiological and electrophysiological tests) was made to identify the strengths, deficiencies and ease of inclusion for future studies of experimental SCI.Results: Based upon pre-established criteria generated by the Neurogenic Bladder and Bowel Working Group that included history of use in experimental settings, citations in the literature by multiple independent groups, ease of general use, reproducibility and sensitivity to change, three fundamental measures each for bladder and bowel assessments were identified. Briefly defined, these assessments centered upon tissue morphology, voiding efficiency/volume and smooth muscle-mediated pressure studies. Additional assessment measures were categorized as recommended, supplemental or exploratory based upon the balance between technical requirements and potential mechanistic insights to be gained by the study.Conclusion: Several fundamental assessments share reasonable levels of technical and material investment, including some that could assess bladder and bowel function non-invasively and simultaneously. Such measures used more inclusively across SCI studies would advance progress in this high priority area. When complemented with a few additional investigator-selected study-relevant supplemental measures, they are highly recommended for research programs investigating the efficacy of therapeutic interventions in preclinical animal models of SCI that have a bladder and/or bowel focus.
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 | 0.035 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.011 |
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".