Newly regenerated axons via scaffolds promote sub-lesional reorganization and motor recovery with epidural electrical stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Here, we report the effect of newly regenerated axons via scaffolds on reorganization of spinal circuitry and restoration of motor functions with epidural electrical stimulation (EES). Motor recovery was evaluated for 7 weeks after spinal transection and following implantation with scaffolds seeded with neurotrophin producing Schwann cell and with rapamycin microspheres. Combined treatment with scaffolds and EES-enabled stepping led to functional improvement compared to groups with scaffold or EES, although, the number of axons across scaffolds was not different between groups. Re-transection through the scaffold at week 6 reduced EES-enabled stepping, still demonstrating better performance compared to the other groups. Greater synaptic reorganization in the presence of regenerated axons was found in group with combined therapy. These findings suggest that newly regenerated axons through cell-containing scaffolds with EES-enabled motor training reorganize the sub-lesional circuitry improving motor recovery, demonstrating that neuroregenerative and neuromodulatory therapies cumulatively enhancing motor function after complete SCI.
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".