Temporal Progression of Acute Spinal Cord Injury Mechanisms in a Rat Model: Contusion, Dislocation, and Distraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traumatic spinal cord injuries (SCIs) occur due to different spinal column injury patterns, including burst fracture, dislocation, and flexion-distraction. Pre-clinical studies modeling different SCI mechanisms have shown distinct histological differences between these injuries both acutely (3 h and less) and chronically (8 weeks), but there remains a temporal gap. Different rates of injury progression at specific regions of the spinal cord may provide insight into the pathologies that are initiated by specific SCI mechanisms. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the temporal progression of injury at specific tracts within the white matter, for time-points of 3 h, 24 h, and 7 days, for three distinct SCI mechanisms. In this study, 96 male Sprague Dawley rats underwent one of three SCI mechanisms: contusion, dislocation, or distraction. Animals were sacrificed at one of three times post-injury: 3 h, 24 h, or 7 days. Histological analysis using eriochrome cyanide and immunostaining for MBP, SMI-312, neurofilament-H (NF-H), and β-III tubulin were used to characterize white matter sparing and axon and myelinated axon counts. The regions analyzed were the gracile fasciculus, cuneate fasciculus, dorsal corticospinal tract, and ventrolateral white matter. Contusion, dislocation, and distraction SCIs demonstrated distinct damage patterns that progressed differently over time. Myelinated axon counts were significantly reduced after dislocation and contusion injuries in most locations and time-points analyzed (compared with sham). This indicates early myelin damage often within 3 h. Myelinated axon counts after distraction dropped early and did not demonstrate any significant progression over the next 7 days. Important differences in white matter degeneration were identified between injury types, with distraction injuries showing the least variability across time-points These findings and the observation that white matter injury occurs early, and in many cases, without much dynamic change, highlight the importance of injury type in SCI research-both clinically and pre-clinically.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".