Electrical Stimulation as a Tool to Promote Plasticity of the Injured Spinal Cord
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlike their peripheral nervous system counterparts, the capacity of central nervous system neurons and axons for regeneration after injury is minimal. Although a myriad of therapies (and different combinations thereof) to help promote repair and recovery after spinal cord injury (SCI) have been trialed, few have progressed from bench-top to bedside. One of the few such therapies that has been successfully translated from basic science to clinical applications is electrical stimulation (ES). Although the use and study of ES in peripheral nerve growth dates back nearly a century, only recently has it started to be used in a clinical setting. Since those initial experiments and seminal publications, the application of ES to restore function and promote healing have greatly expanded. In this review, we discuss the progression and use of ES over time as it pertains to promoting axonal outgrowth and functional recovery post-SCI. In doing so, we consider four major uses for the study of ES based on the proposed or documented underlying mechanism: (1) using ES to introduce an electric field at the site of injury to promote axonal outgrowth and plasticity; (2) using spinal cord ES to activate or to increase the excitability of neuronal networks below the injury; (3) using motor cortex ES to promote corticospinal tract axonal outgrowth and plasticity; and (4) leveraging the timing of paired stimuli to produce plasticity. Finally, the use of ES in its current state in the context of human SCI studies is discussed, in addition to ongoing research and current knowledge gaps, to highlight the direction of future studies for this therapeutic modality.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".