MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297147393 · doi:10.3390/biom12101355

Functional Gait Assessment Using Manual, Semi-Automated and Deep Learning Approaches Following Standardized Models of Peripheral Nerve Injury in Mice

2022· article· en· W4297147393 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel Umansky, Kathleen M. Hagen, Tak‐Ho Chu, Rajesh Krishna Pathiyil, Saud Alzahrani, Shalina S. Ousman, Rajiv Midha

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomolecules · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsCrush injuryMedicineGaitGait analysisSciatic nervePhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryAnatomyAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To develop a standardized model of stretch−crush sciatic nerve injury in mice, and to compare outcomes of crush and novel stretch−crush injuries using standard manual gait and sensory assays, and compare them to both semi-automated as well as deep-learning gait analysis methods. Methods: Initial studies in C57/Bl6 mice were used to develop crush and stretch−crush injury models followed by histologic analysis. In total, 12 eight-week-old 129S6/SvEvTac mice were used in a six-week behavioural study. Behavioral assessments using the von Frey monofilament test and gait analysis recorded on a DigiGait platform and analyzed through both Visual Gait Lab (VGL) deep learning and standardized sciatic functional index (SFI) measurements were evaluated weekly. At the termination of the study, neurophysiological nerve conduction velocities were recorded, calf muscle weight ratios measured and histological analyses performed. Results: Histological evidence confirmed more severe histomorphological injury in the stretch−crush injured group compared to the crush-only injured group at one week post-injury. Von Frey monofilament paw withdrawal was significant for both groups at week one compared to baseline (p < 0.05), but not between groups with return to baseline at week five. SFI showed hindered gait at week one and two for both groups, compared to baseline (p < 0.0001), with return to baseline at week five. Hind stance width (HSW) showed similar trends as von Frey monofilament test as well as SFI measurements, yet hind paw angle (HPA) peaked at week two. Nerve conduction velocity (NCV), measured six weeks post-injury, at the termination of the study, did not show any significant difference between the two groups; yet, calf muscle weight measurements were significantly different between the two, with the stretch−crush group demonstrating a lower (poorer) weight ratio relative to uninjured contralateral legs (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Stretch−crush injury achieved a more reproducible and constant injury compared to crush-only injuries, with at least a Sunderland grade 3 injury (perineurial interruption) in histological samples one week post-injury in the former. However, serial behavioral outcomes were comparable between the two crush groups, with similar kinetics of recovery by von Frey testing, SFI and certain VGL parameters, the latter reported for the first time in rodent peripheral nerve injury. Semi-automated and deep learning-based approaches for gait analysis are promising, but require further validation for evaluation in murine hind-limb nerve injuries.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomoleculesSame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207