Chondroitinase ABC and acute electrical stimulation are beneficial for muscle reinnervation after sciatic nerve transection in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Nerve regeneration and functional recovery are often incomplete after peripheral nerve damage. The aim of this study was to determine if chondroitinase ABC injection at the lesion site, 1 hour of electrical stimulation and the combination of these treatments at the time of repair could be effective in promoting muscle reinnervation. METHODS: The right sciatic nerve was completely sectioned in 32 female Sprague-Dawley rats. End-to-end microsuture repair was undertaken and fibrin glue was added. Five groups were studied: 1) suture (S) + fibrin glue (F) only; 2) S + F + chondroitinase ABC; 3) S + F + electrical stimulation; 4) S + F + chondroitinase ABC + electrical stimulation; 5) uninjured nerve. RESULTS: Post recovery kinematics showed larger excursion of the hip-ankle-toe angle during walking in groups 2, 3 and 4 than in group 1 (p < 0.05). In vivo electromyographic activity and maximal muscle force were similar between groups 2, 3, 4 and 5, with higher values in all of them compared to group 1 (p < 0.05). Also, the distal stump of the sciatic nerve was excised, and cross-sectioning revealed that the number of axons were similar in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: 150 days after nerve transection, recovery was incomplete with S and F only. Chondroitinase ABC injection at the lesion site and/or 1 hour of electrical stimulation of the proximal nerve stump were beneficial in promoting nerve regeneration and functional muscle reinnervation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".