Implantation of Optoelectronic Devices in the Rodent Spinal Cord
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuromodulation can provide diagnostic, modulatory, and therapeutic applications. While extensive work has been conducted in the brain, modulation of the spinal cord remains relatively unexplored. The inherently delicate and mobile spinal cord tissue imposes constraints that make the precise implantation of neural probes challenging. Despite recent advances in neuromodulation devices, particularly flexible bioelectronics, opportunities to expand their use in the spinal cord have been limited by the surgical complexities of device implantation. Here, we provide a series of surgical protocols tailored specifically for the implantation of a custom-made optoelectronic device that interfaces with the spinal cord in rodents. The steps to place and anchor an optical shank on a specific segment of the spinal cord via two different surgical implantation methods are detailed here. These methods are optimized for a diverse range of devices and applications, which may or may not require direct contact with the spinal cord for optical stimulation. To elucidate the methodology, the vertebral anatomy is referenced first to identify prominent landmarks before making a skin incision. The surgical steps to secure an optical shank over the cervical spine in rodents are demonstrated. Procedures are then outlined for securing the optoelectronic device connected to the optical shank in a subcutaneous space away from the spinal cord, minimizing unnecessary direct contact. Behavioral studies comparing animals receiving the implants to those undergoing sham surgeries indicate that the optical shanks did not adversely affect hindlimb or forelimb function seven days post-implantation. The present work broadens the neuromodulation toolkit for use in future studies aimed at investigating various spinal cord interventions.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".