ArticleResearch square2023
Prediction of isometric forces from combined epidural spinal cord and neuromuscular electrical stimulation in the rat lower limb.
Article in Research square, 2023. 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Both epidural spinal cord and muscle stimulation have been widely used for restoration of movement after spinal cord injury. However, using both approaches simultaneously could provide more flexible control compared to using either approach alone. We evaluate whether responses evoked by combined spinal and muscle stimulation can be predicted by the linear summation of responses produced by each individually. Should this be true, it would simplify the prediction of co-stimulation responses and the development of control schemes for spinal cord injury rehabilitation. In anesthetized rats, we measured hindlimb isometric forces in response to spinal and muscle stimulation across a range of amplitudes. Force prediction errors were calculated as the difference between predicted co-stimulation vectors and observed co-stimulation vectors whereby small errors signified evidence for linear summation. We found that the errors for spinal and muscle co-stimulation were significantly larger than expected. Using a bootstrapping analysis, we find that these larger errors do not reflect a nonlinear interaction between spinal and muscle responses. Instead, they can be attributed to the variability of spinal stimulation responses. We discuss the implications of these results to the use of combined muscle and spinal stimulation for the restoration of movement following spinal cord injury.
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.