MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206847790 · doi:10.3171/2021.4.jns21398

Recovering the regenerative potential in chronically injured nerves by using conditioning electrical stimulation

2021· article· en· W3206847790 on OpenAlexaff
Jenna‐Lynn Senger, Karyne N. Rabey, Leah Acton, Ying-Ho S. Lin, Susanne Lingrell, K. Ming Chan, Christine A. Webber

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of neurosurgery · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinnervationMedicineIsograftRegeneration (biology)Nerve injuryTibial nerveStimulationAnesthesiaSurgerySham surgeryMotor nerveAnatomyTransplantationPathologyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Chronically injured nerves pose a significant clinical challenge despite surgical management. There is no clinically feasible perioperative technique to upregulate a proregenerative environment in a chronic nerve injury. Conditioning electrical stimulation (CES) significantly improves sensorimotor recovery following acute nerve injury to the tibial and common fibular nerves. The authors' objective was to determine if CES could foster a proregenerative environment following chronically injured nerve reconstruction. METHODS: The tibial nerve of 60 Sprague Dawley rats was cut, and the proximal ends were inserted into the hamstring muscles to prevent spontaneous reinnervation. Eleven weeks postinjury, these chronically injured animals were randomized, and half were treated with CES proximal to the tibial nerve cut site. Three days later, 24 animals were killed to evaluate the effects of CES on the expression of regeneration-associated genes at the cell body (n = 18) and Schwann cell proliferation (n = 6). In the remaining animals, the tibial nerve defect was reconstructed using a 10-mm isograft. Length of nerve regeneration was assessed 3 weeks postgrafting (n = 16), and functional recovery was evaluated weekly between 7 and 19 weeks of regeneration (n = 20). RESULTS: Three weeks after nerve isograft surgery, tibial nerves treated with CES prior to grafting had a significantly longer length of nerve regeneration (p < 0.01). Von Frey analysis identified improved sensory recovery among animals treated with CES (p < 0.01). Motor reinnervation, assessed by kinetics, kinematics, and skilled motor tasks, showed significant recovery (p < 0.05 to p < 0.001). These findings were supported by immunohistochemical quantification of motor endplate reinnervation (p < 0.05). Mechanisms to support the role of CES in reinvigorating the regenerative response were assessed, and it was demonstrated that CES increased the proliferation of Schwann cells in chronically injured nerves (p < 0.05). Furthermore, CES upregulated regeneration-associated gene expression to increase growth-associated protein-43 (GAP-43), phosphorylated cAMP response element binding protein (pCREB) at the neuronal cell bodies, and upregulated glial fibrillary acidic protein expression in the surrounding satellite glial cells (p < 0.05 to p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Regeneration following chronic axotomy is impaired due to downregulation of the proregenerative environment generated following nerve injury. CES delivered to a chronically injured nerve influences the cell body and the nerve to re-upregulate an environment that accelerates axon regeneration, resulting in significant improvements in sensory and motor functional recovery. Percutaneous CES may be a preoperative strategy to significantly improve outcomes for patients undergoing delayed nerve reconstruction.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of neurosurgerySame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207