Interventions to Prevent Serial Sarcomere Loss Caused by Electrical Stimulation in Rabbit Triceps Surae Muscles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with spastic Cerebral Palsy (CP) suffer from involuntary muscle contractionsdue to lesions in the brain. This appears to cause muscles to become veryshort and stiff, limiting the range of motion of a joint. This hypoextensibility maybe explained by a decrease in serial sarcomere number. It has been shown in ourlab that a 10 hour electrical stimulation period decreases serial sarcomere numbersin the triceps surae group by approximately 25%1. The rapid decrease suggests thatelectrical stimulation is a very strong regulator of serial sarcomere number. In anattempt to abolish the effects of muscle spasms, CP patients use casts or splints toprevent muscle shortening. Currently, the effect of casting on sarcomere number is notknown. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to test if casting a limb will preventsarcomere loss. In a New Zealand White Rabbit (n=1), the hind limb was placed in aplaster cast at a 70 dorsiflexion position. The leg was then stimulated via the tibialnerve (20 Hz, 4 times a-motorneuron threshold) for 10 hours. The contralateral limbserved as the control where the tibial nerve was transected to ensure no cross-overtraining effects. The Soleus, Medial Gastrocnemius (MG), Plantaris, and ExtensorDigitorum Longus (EDL) muscles were extracted and analyzed for sarcomere number.Analysis across different regions of the muscles showed a decrease of 9.67.4% in theMG, 6.96.6% in the Plantaris, 33.56.2% in the Soleus, and 4.44.1% in the EDL.No change was expected in the EDL, as it was not stimulated. The MG and Plantarisappeared to have very little decrease in serial sarcomere number, while the Soleus hada surprisingly large decrease. More experiments are required for conclusive results.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".