Part I: A CLIMBER Meta-analysis, recovery time measured by behavioral outcome tests after contusive injuries on various spinal levels segments in rats and mice of both sexes from Literature-Extracted Data (LED)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to analyze recovery after spinal cord injury through various different behavioral outcome tests. The study compared effect sizes from literature sourced (literature-extracted data (LED)) to the literatures’ corresponding publicly available raw data (individual animal data (IAD)). Random effect models and regression analyses were applied to evaluate predictors of neuro-conversion in LED versus IAD. Subgroup analyses were performed on animal sex, animal type, animal species, injury severity, injury segment and sample sizes. Publications with common injury models (contusive injuries) and standardized endpoints (open field assessments) were included in the meta-analyses. Studies that recorded open field assessments at 0-3 and 28-56 days past operation were included. This dataset includes the literature-extracted data (LED) (part 1) that was collected for the study. The code to replicate our study can be found on github (https://github.com/ucsf-ferguson-lab/climber_meta_analysis2024.git). This dataset corresponds with another dataset in ODC-SCI (10.34945/F5J59P) which contains raw data, individual animal data (IAD), that directly corresponds to the literature extracted data in this dataset. DATA COLLECTED: The literature-extracted data (LED) contained in this dataset was pulled from numerical and graphical outcomes reported in published literature. This dataset includes data extracted from 7 different published articles. Unlike other datasets in odc-sci, each row represents an experimental group rather than an individual subject. The values are summarized for each experimental group. Each study from the published articles includes contusion injuries with various severities and different locations, which are indicated in this dataset. Different mice and rat species are included in the dataset with both sexes. Outcome scores at different days-post operation from BBB, BMS, Grooming and Forelimb Open Field tests are also included. The behavioral outcome scores over days post operation were used to calculate effect sizes. DATA USAGE NOTES:
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 | 0.011 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.005 |
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".