MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394622613 · doi:10.1113/jp286151

Changes in intra‐ and interlimb reflexes from hindlimb cutaneous afferents after staggered thoracic lateral hemisections during locomotion in cats

2024· article· en· W4394622613 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephen Mari, Charly G. Lecomte, Angèle N. Merlet, Johannie Audet, Sirine Yassine, Oussama Eddaoui, Gabriel Genois, Charlène Nadeau, Jonathan Harnie, Ilya A. Rybak, Boris I. Prilutsky, Alain Frigon

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéNational Institutes of HealthUniversité de MontréalUniversité de Sherbrooke
KeywordsForelimbHindlimbReflexAnatomySpinal cordMedicineLatency (audio)CATSQuadrupedalismNeuroscienceBalance (ability)Decerebrate StateStretch reflexBiologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnesthesiaStimulationElectric stimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When the foot dorsum contacts an obstacle during locomotion, cutaneous afferents signal central circuits to coordinate muscle activity in the four limbs. Spinal cord injury disrupts these interactions, impairing balance and interlimb coordination. We evoked cutaneous reflexes by electrically stimulating left and right superficial peroneal nerves before and after two thoracic lateral hemisections placed on opposite sides of the cord at 9- to 13-week interval in seven adult cats (4 males and 3 females). We recorded reflex responses in ten hindlimb and five forelimb muscles bilaterally. After the first (right T5-T6) and second (left T10-T11) hemisections, coordination of the fore- and hindlimbs was altered and/or became less consistent. After the second hemisection, cats required balance assistance to perform quadrupedal locomotion. Short-latency reflex responses in homonymous and crossed hindlimb muscles largely remained unaffected after staggered hemisections. However, mid- and long-latency homonymous and crossed responses in both hindlimbs occurred less frequently after staggered hemisections. In forelimb muscles, homolateral and diagonal mid- and long-latency response occurrence significantly decreased after the first and second hemisections. In all four limbs, however, when present, short-, mid- and long-latency responses maintained their phase-dependent modulation. We also observed reduced durations of short-latency inhibitory homonymous responses in left hindlimb extensors early after the first hemisection and delayed short-latency responses in the right ipsilesional hindlimb after the first hemisection. Therefore, changes in cutaneous reflex responses correlated with impaired balance/stability and interlimb coordination during locomotion after spinal cord injury. Restoring reflex transmission could be used as a biomarker to facilitate locomotor recovery. KEY POINTS: Cutaneous afferent inputs coordinate muscle activity in the four limbs during locomotion when the foot dorsum contacts an obstacle. Thoracic spinal cord injury disrupts communication between spinal locomotor centres located at cervical and lumbar levels, impairing balance and limb coordination. We investigated cutaneous reflexes during quadrupedal locomotion by electrically stimulating the superficial peroneal nerve bilaterally, before and after staggered lateral thoracic hemisections of the spinal cord in cats. We showed a loss/reduction of mid- and long-latency responses in all four limbs after staggered hemisections, which correlated with altered coordination of the fore- and hindlimbs and impaired balance. Targeting cutaneous reflex pathways projecting to the four limbs could help develop therapeutic approaches aimed at restoring transmission in ascending and descending spinal pathways.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PhysiologySame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207