MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396231592 · doi:10.1016/j.hcl.2024.03.001

Physiology of Nerve Regeneration

2024· review· en· W4396231592 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueHand Clinics · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineRegeneration (biology)Peripheral nervePeripheral nerve injuryAtrophyNerve injuryDenervationNerve repairNeuroscienceStimulationSchwann cellPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnatomySurgeryPathologyBiologyInternal medicineCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Functional recovery after peripheral nerve injuries is disappointing despite surgical advances in nerve repair. This review summarizes the relatively short window of opportunity for successful nerve regeneration due to the decline in the expression of growth-associated genes and in turn, the decline in regenerative capacity of the injured neurons and the support provided by the denervated Schwann cells, and the atrophy of denervated muscles. Brief, low-frequency electrical stimulation and post-injury exercise regimes ameliorate these deficits in animal models and patients, but the misdirection of regenerating nerve fibers compromises functional recovery and remains an important area of future research.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.270 · 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