Residual Innervation of the Pelvic Floor Muscles in People with Motor-Complete Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals classified clinically as having a motor-complete spinal cord injury (mcSCI) should lack voluntary motor function below their injury level. Neurophysiological assessments using electromyography (EMG) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), however, have demonstrated that persons with mcSCI retain limited cortical descending innervation and voluntary activation of muscles below their level of injury, including muscles of the trunk and lower limb. We explored the possibility of whether there is also preserved innervation of the pelvic floor muscles (PFM) in persons with mcSCI. The PFM are controlled by widespread cortical and subcortical areas and typically coactivated with trunk and gluteal muscles to maintain continence and regulate intra-abdominal pressure. Nine mcSCI and eight control subjects participated in this cross-sectional study. Surface EMG was used to record activity in the PFM. Data were recorded while participants attempted various maneuvers of the trunk and pelvis. We also applied TMS at incrementing levels of intensity over the primary motor cortex area to record motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in the PFM. When performing the maneuvers, activation of the PFM was possible in all controls and the majority of SCI participants. However, the PFM were only activated in the SCI participants during maneuvers that engaged other trunk muscles, however. MEP responses in the PFM were also elicited in all controls and SCI participants, but MEP response characteristics were significantly altered in the SCI group. Our results suggest that persons with mcSCI retain some residual innervation of the PFM after injury, possibly via indirect cortical descending pathways.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".