MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414258145 · doi:10.1101/2025.09.11.25335523

Non-invasive spinal cord neuromodulation enables volitional anti-gravity leg movements after motor-complete spinal cord injury: responders vs. non-responders

2025· preprint· en· W4414258145 on OpenAlexaff
Raza N. Malik, Soshi Samejima, Alison M. M. Williams, Ali Hosseinzadeh, Emmanuel Ogalo, Alexander Stolz, Claire Shackleton, Tiev Miller, Mohamed Gomaa Sobeeh, John L. K. Kramer, Tania Lam, Rahul Sachdeva, Michael Berger, Andrei V. Krassioukov

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsGF Strong Rehabilitation CentreInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpinal cord injuryElectromyographyAnkleSpinal cordNeuromodulationTibial nerveLumbosacral jointTibialis anterior muscleReflexH-reflex

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background and Objectives Transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tSCS) is an emerging treatment for motor recovery following spinal cord injury (SCI). However, the extent of motor recovery with tSCS and the reasons why some individuals with motor-complete SCI respond less effectively, despite having the same injury classification, remain unclear. Here, we demonstrate that lumbosacral tSCS can enable anti-gravity voluntary movement following motor-complete SCI, and identify markers that distinguish responders from non-responders. Methods Ten individuals with chronic motor-complete SCI received 30Hz lumbosacral tSCS for 60 min, 2-5 times per week, for a minimum of 6 weeks. Post-intervention, volitional movement was measured using surface electromyography (EMG) over the quadriceps and tibialis anterior (TA), and knee and ankle joint range of motion. To identify markers of responsiveness, we assessed the integrity of the corticospinal tract (motor evoked potentials; MEPs), ascending sensory pathways (somatosensory evoked potentials; SEPs), spinal cord reflexes (H-reflex), and motor neurons (compound muscle action potential, CMAP), along with muscle morphology using ultrasound echo-intensity. Results Five of 10 individuals demonstrated voluntary anti-gravity knee extension and ankle dorsiflexion strength in the presence of tSCS. TA MEPs were observed in one responder only and tibial nerve SEPs were not observed in any participants. All participants showed poor TA muscle morphology. Four responders had a soleus H-reflex (compared to 2/5 non-responders) and a normal amplitude fibular CMAPs (compared to 2/5 non-responders). Discussion These results show that tSCS can enable volitional motor activity against gravity in people with motor-complete SCI, but there is variability in responsiveness. Using conventional neurophysiological techniques, we were unable to consistently demonstrate the pathways facilitating voluntary control or the factors differentiating responders versus non-responders, but trends were observed. Spinal cord reflex and peripheral motor nerve integrity may be important for responding to tSCS but may not distinguish responders from non-responders. Additional assessments are needed to develop biomarkers for stratifying motor responders to tSCS.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicSpinal Cord Injury Research→French-language works237,207→