Neuroregenerative Effects of Intraspinal Microstimulation (ISMS) Following Spinal Cord Injury (SCI)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Intraspinal microstimulation (ISMS) is a novel electrical stimulation technique that has demonstrated mobility restoration in animals with spinal cord injury (SCI). This project investigated: 1) the capacity of ISMS to restore functional walking in rats with SCI through 4 weeks of stimulation, and 2) the degree of walking deficit caused by ISMS surgery. Methods Thirteen Sprague Dawley rats were divided into three groups: 1) rats with hemi-section SCI (hSCI) and no implants (control group), 2) rats with hSCI and passive ISMS implants (ISMS sham group), and 3) rats with hSCI and implants with active electrical stimulation (ISMS group). All groups were trained to walk on a horizontal ladder and their performance was quantified pre- and post-surgery. Results We hypothesized that the rats with active ISMS implants would demonstrate the greatest improvement in functional walking compared to both control groups, and that the ISMS sham group would underperform the most. The preoperative functional walking scores of control, sham and ISMS rats were 5.7±0.2, 5.5±0.3 and 5.7±0.1, respectively (7-point scale; mean ± standard error). The post-surgery scores were 3.2±0.9, 2.6±0.6 and 3.3±0.8 for control, sham, and ISMS rats, respectively. Conclusions As the difference between the post-surgery functional walking scores of ISMS and control rats was not statistically significant, this may indicate that four weeks of ISMS stimulation is not enough to cause rehabilitative effects. Additionally, the ISMS sham group demonstrated impaired functional walking compared to the hSCI control group as predicted. Future studies will employ a larger sample size to fully elucidate this trend and utilize thinner microwires to mitigate cellular damage.
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 | 0.000 | 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".