Comparative neuroanatomy of the lumbosacral spinal cord of the rat, cat, pig, monkey, and human
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The overall goal of this work was to create a high-resolution MRI atlas of the lumbosacral enlargement of the spinal cord of the rat (Sprague-Dawley), cat, domestic pig, rhesus monkey, and human. These species were chosen because they are commonly used in basic and translational research in spinal cord injuries and diseases. Six spinal cord specimens from each of the studied species (total of 30 specimens) were fixed, extracted, and imaged. Sizes of the spinal cord segments, cross-sectional dimensions, and locations of the spinal cord gray and white matter were quantified and compared across species. The lumbar enlargement spans spinal cord levels L3-S1 in rats, L4-S1 in cats, L3-S1 in pigs, L2/L3-L7/S1 in monkeys, and T12/L1-S1/S2 in humans. The enlargements in pigs and humans are largest and most similar in size (length and cross-sectional area); followed by monkeys and cats; and followed by rats. The obtained atlas establishes a neuroanatomical reference for the intact lumbosacral spinal cord in these species. It can also be used to guide the planning of surgical procedures of the spinal cord and technology design and development of spinal cord neuroprostheses, as well as precise delivery of cells/drugs into target regions within the spinal cord parenchyma.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".