Comparative Behavioral Assessment of Lewis and Nude Rats after Peripheral Nerve Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cell therapy has shown potential in the field of peripheral nerve repair, and research using rodents is a critical and essential step toward clinical development of this approach. Traditionally, most experimental peripheral nerve injuries are conducted in inbred Lewis or outbred Sprague-Dawley strains. However, transplantation of xenogeneic cells such as human-derived cells typically triggers rejection in these animals. An alternative approach is to use immunodeficient animals, such as athymic nude rats. The lack of functional T cells in these animals renders them more accommodating to foreign cells from a different host. Currently, no literature exists regarding sensorimotor behavioral assessment of nude rats after peripheral nerve injury. To this end, we compared the functional recovery during a 6-wk period of behavioral testing of Lewis and nude rats after unilateral sciatic nerve crushing injury. Three sensorimotor behavioral assessments were performed weekly: a ladder rungwalking task to assess slip ratio and cross duration, von Frey nociception testing to determine the paw withdrawal threshold thus monitoring the regaining of sensory function, and sciatic functional index evaluation to monitor the recovery of integrated motor function. Both strains demonstrated significant sensory and motor deficits in the first week after injury, with a slight regain of sensory function, reduced slip ratio, and increased sciatic functional index starting at 2 wk. No significance difference existed between nude and Lewis rats in their recovery courses. We conclude that nude rats are a suitable model for behavioral training and assessment for cell transplantation studies in peripheral nerve injury and repair.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".