MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MECHANISMS OF MOTOR RECOVERY IN A NON-HUMAN PRIMATE MODEL OF CHRONIC STROKE

2017· other· en· W6927131747 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library) · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDiphtheria, Corynebacterium, and Tetanus
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChronic strokeStroke (engine)Task (project management)Stroke recoveryPrimateMotor functionActivities of daily living

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stroke is the leading cause of death and disability and has the largest socioeconomic burden of any disease in Canada. Survivors are frequently left with long-term disabilities that diminish their autonomy and quality of life and result in the need for chronic care. As such, there is an urgent need for therapies that improve stroke recovery, as well as accurate and quantitative tools to measure function. Non-human primates closely resemble humans in neuroanatomy and upper limb function, and may be crucial in bridging the translational gap for testing stroke therapies. Cynomolgus macaques were trained on a visually guided reaching task on the Kinesiological Instrument for Normal and Altered Reaching Movements (KINARM). We then induced strokes in these animals by transiently occluding the medial cerebral artery for 90 minutes and assessed their motor performance on the same reaching task throughout recovery. During the weeks following stroke, we noted recovery of function that plateaued by two months post-stroke. In comparing performance in this chronic stroke state to performance pre-stroke, we found that hand movements in the task became slower, less accurate, and less stereotyped. Taken together, these studies highlight specific sensorimotor deficits in visually guided reaching movements following stroke and validate the use of robotic assessment tools in identifying and quantifying such deficits.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library)Same topicDiphtheria, Corynebacterium, and TetanusFrench-language works237,207