Student Competition (Knowledge Generation) ID 1985185
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objective Transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tSCS) facilitates spinal networks involving motor function. The purpose of this study is to compare the effect of stimulators used and amplitude of tSCS, applied at the cervical region of the spinal cord, on propriospinal modulation of lower limbs. Corticospinal and spinal reflex excitability were assessed with lower limb motor evoked potentials (MEPs), and Hoffman (H-) reflexes, respectively. Methods Neurologically intact participants (n=6) were recruited. Two stimulators (NeoStim-5 and DS8R) were used, and different tSCS amplitudes at threshold (thresh) and maximum tolerance (max) were applied. The effect of tSCS on the amplitude of the H-reflex evoked in the soleus muscle was assessed, as well as the effect of cervical tSCS on MEPs evoked in the tibialis anterior muscle. Participants completed five conditions including: 1) Control (no stimulation) 2) DS8R Thresh 3) DS8R Max 4) NeoStim-5 Thresh 5) NeoStim-5 Max. Results At the same tSCS amplitude, the participants subjectively tolerated the NeoStim-5 better than the DS8R. The maximum tolerated amplitude for NeoStim-5 was higher than that of the DS8R, for all participants. Preliminary analysis suggests changes in tSCS amplitude delivered, do not appear to have an effect on the H-reflex and MEP in this small sample of participants. Conclusions Preliminary findings indicate that different stimulators produce different sensations at the same tSCS amplitudes. Changes in stimulator amplitudes do not appear to have an effect on the electrophysiological outcome on propriospinal modulation. This study sets the basis for understanding mechanisms of tSCS, including cutaneous activation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.896 | 0.791 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".