MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3101926567 · doi:10.3390/ijms21228652

Peripheral Nerve Regeneration and Muscle Reinnervation

2020· review· en· W3101926567 on OpenAlexafffund
Tessa Gordon

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Molecular Sciences · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFondation pour la Recherche MédicaleMuscular Dystrophy Association
KeywordsReinnervationWallerian degenerationAxonNeuroscienceRegeneration (biology)Epineurial repairNeurotrophic factorsPeripheral nerve injuryNerve injuryPeripheral nervous systemAnatomyBiologyNerve guidance conduitMyelinMedicineCell biologyCentral nervous systemInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Injured peripheral nerves but not central nerves have the capacity to regenerate and reinnervate their target organs. After the two most severe peripheral nerve injuries of six types, crush and transection injuries, nerve fibers distal to the injury site undergo Wallerian degeneration. The denervated Schwann cells (SCs) proliferate, elongate and line the endoneurial tubes to guide and support regenerating axons. The axons emerge from the stump of the viable nerve attached to the neuronal soma. The SCs downregulate myelin-associated genes and concurrently, upregulate growth-associated genes that include neurotrophic factors as do the injured neurons. However, the gene expression is transient and progressively fails to support axon regeneration within the SC-containing endoneurial tubes. Moreover, despite some preference of regenerating motor and sensory axons to "find" their appropriate pathways, the axons fail to enter their original endoneurial tubes and to reinnervate original target organs, obstacles to functional recovery that confront nerve surgeons. Several surgical manipulations in clinical use, including nerve and tendon transfers, the potential for brief low-frequency electrical stimulation proximal to nerve repair, and local FK506 application to accelerate axon outgrowth, are encouraging as is the continuing research to elucidate the molecular basis of nerve regeneration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations377
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Molecular SciencesSame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207