Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assuming that neural regeneration after spinal cord injury (SCI) will eventually become a clinical reality, functional recovery will probably remain incomplete. Assistive devices will therefore continue to play an important role in rehabilitation. Neural prostheses (NPs) are assistive devices that restore functions lost as a result of neural damage. NPs electrically stimulate nerves and are either external or implanted devices. Surface stimulators for muscle exercise are now commonplace in rehabilitation clinics and many homes. Regarding implantable NPs, since 1963 over 40 000 have been implanted to restore hearing, bladder control and respiration. Epidural spinal cord stimulators and deep brain stimulators are routinely implanted to control pain, spasticity, tremor and rigidity. Implantable NPs have also been developed to restore limb movements using electrodes tunnelled under the skin to muscles and nerves. Spinal cord microstimulation (SC[mu]stim) is under study as an alternative way of restoring movement and bladder control. Improvement in bladder and bowel function is a high priority for many SCI people. Sacral root stimulation to elicit bladder contraction is the current NP approach, but this usually requires dorsal rhizotomies to reduce reflex contractions of the external urethral sphincter. It is possible that the spinal centres coordinating the bladder-sphincter synergy could be activated with SC[mu]stim. Given the large and growing number of NPs in use or development, it is surprising how little is known about their long-term interactions with the nervous system. Physiological research will play an important role in elucidating the mechanisms underlying these interactions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".