MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405382276 · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2024.1478423

Neurostimulation on lumbosacral nerves as a new treatment for spinal cord injury impairments and its impact on cortical activity: a narrative review

2024· review· en· W4405382276 on OpenAlexaff
Rodrigo Lantyer Marques Dantas, Diego N. Vilela, Mariana Cardoso Melo, Gustavo Leme Fernandes, Nucelio Lemos, Jean Faber

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Human Neuroscience · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersInstituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia de Neurociência TranslacionalConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsNeuromodulationSpinal cord injuryNeurostimulationMedicineNeurorehabilitationRehabilitationNeuroprostheticsNeuroplasticityPhysical medicine and rehabilitationNeuroscienceSpinal cordPhysical therapyPsychologyStimulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spinal cord injury (SCI) can cause significant motor, sensory, and autonomic dysfunction by disrupting neural connections. As a result, it is a global health challenge that requires innovative interventions to improve outcomes. This review assesses the wide-ranging impacts of SCI and focuses on the laparoscopic implantation of neuroprosthesis (LION) as an emerging and promising rehabilitation technique. The LION technique involves the surgical implantation of electrodes on lumbosacral nerves to stimulate paralyzed muscles. Recent findings have demonstrated significant improvements in mobility, sexual function, and bladder/bowel control in chronic SCI patients following LION therapy. This manuscript revisits the potential physiological mechanisms underlying these results, including neuroplasticity and modulation of autonomic activity. Additionally, we discuss potential future applications and amendments of LION therapy. This study emphasizes the potential of neuromodulation as a complementary approach to traditional rehabilitation, that can provide a beacon of hope for improving functionality and quality of life for individuals with SCI.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.180
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.362 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Human NeuroscienceSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207