ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2016
A leech model for homeostatic plasticity and motor network recovery after loss of descending inputs.
Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Motor networks below the site of spinal cord injury (SCI) and their reconfiguration after loss of central inputs are poorly understood but remain of great interest in SCI research. Harley et al. (J Neurophysiol 113: 3610-3622, 2015) report a striking locomotor recovery paradigm in the leech Hirudo verbena with features that are functionally analogous to SCI. They propose that this well-established neurophysiological system could potentially be repurposed to provide a complementary model to investigate basic principles of homeostatic compensation relevant to SCI research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.