Rehabilitative Experience Interacts With FGF-2 to Facilitate Functional Improvement After Motor Cortex Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This experiment compared the effects of a structured rehabilitation regime (skilled reaching for 5 mo) and more varied training (complex environment for 5 mo) with and without postlesion infusion of FGF-2 for 7 days in rats having unilateral motor cortex lesions. Animals were tested on a motor battery throughout the five-month recovery period. The structured rehabilitation alone was ineffective in improving function whereas complex housing did improve performance on several measures. FGF-2 alone was ineffective but in combination with either the rehabilitation training or complex housing it did provide functional benefit. The combination of complex housing and FGF-2 was most effective as all motor measures showed significant improvement. Golgi analysis of layer III cortical pyramidal neurons showed that the complex housing essentially reversed the dendritic loss in the lesion animals. Curiously, there was no effect of FGF-2 on the cells measured, even though there was a beneficial effect of the combined FGF-2 and complex housing. It appears that varied rehabilitative programs, in combination with factors that promote neuronal plasticity are far more beneficial than similar training alone.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".