Noninvasive electrodiagnostic and motor function assessment of the common fibular nerve regeneration in the rabbit hindlimb
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although widely used, the rat model remains poorly transferable to humans for peripheral nerve regeneration studies. The rabbit is a much better choice from an anatomical perspective. However, it remains little used due to the lack of available literature. The aim of this article is to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of an electrophysiological protocol combined with a motor function assessment to analyze nerve repair. METHODS: Ten white New Zealand rabbits underwent a 4 cm transection of the fibular nerve. Autograft regeneration over 36 weeks was compared to non-repaired controls. The compound muscle action potential (CMAP) was recorded in the tibialis anterior and the extensor digitorum brevis. An electromyogram (EMG) was obtained after needle insertion and resting muscle activity recording. The electrophysiological results were compared to the toe spread index (TSI), which assesses the motor functional recovery promoted by fibular nerve regeneration. RESULTS: The autograft group regeneration starts between weeks 18 and 21 and normal EMG was observed around the 30th week. These electrophysiological results were compared to the well-defined toe spread reflex. This motor test showed a significant functional return of 59% at 36 weeks (p < 0.05). Rabbits regain nearly 80% of their muscle mass. CONCLUSION: Nerve conduction allows detection of nerve regeneration of the muscle while electromyography indicates when muscle activity returns to normal. These studies are reliable and non-invasive techniques to evaluate fibular nerve regeneration in the rabbit's hindlimb. Nonetheless, it is necessary to have qualified personnel, since inter-manipulator variations have been observed.
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 | 0.000 | 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".