UT Dallas breakthrough medical study could revolutionize spinal cord recovery
Researchers at UT Dallas have miniaturized an implantable device for spinal cord injury recovery.
Paired with physical therapy, the device has shown significant improvement, with potential even for patients injured decades ago.
The breakthrough challenges long-held medical beliefs, offering new hope for those with chronic spinal cord injuries to their neck.
DALLAS - Researchers at UT Dallas say they've made a historic breakthrough in spinal cord injury recovery with a recent implant study.
According to a Nature paper released on Wednesday by the researchers, a minuscule new implantable device paired with physical therapy has achieved significant recovery in clinical trial patients, including one 45 years post-injury.
The groundbreaking technology is the next generation of Vagus Nerve Stimuli (VNS), which the UT Dallas Nature study says is 50 times smaller than traditional devices.
The tiny implantable device, pictured below sitting on a penny, is used for a neurorehabilitation process called "Closed-Loop Vagus Nerve Stimulation," or CLV.
The first in-human study of the treatment took place in North Texas.
The researchers say their new VNS, when used in tandem with targeted physical therapy, led to significant recovery of hand and arm function in people with chronic spinal cord injuries in their neck. One participant included in the study sustained their injury over 45 years ago, they say.
Participants in the study who received the miniaturized VNS were reportedly found to have a dose-dependent improvement in their recovery, meaning the more therapy given, the better. In addition, the researchers have found no ceiling to the recovery potential.
The paper says clinical measures in the trial also improved identically to real-world function for the participants.
Why you should care
According to a Wednesday release from Dr. Jane G. Wigginton, emergency medicine physician and Chief Medical Officer for the Texas Biomedical Device Center at the University of Texas at Dallas, the discoveries laid out in the new paper challenge long-held medical beliefs.
Wigginton says the study's findings show that recovery is possible for spinal cord injury patients even decades after losing motor function; a discovery that defies "medical dogma."
Wigginton notes the North Texas achievement is a scientific success and a beacon of hope for patients all over the world.
What they're saying
"We're not just seeing gains on clinical tests — we're seeing patients fasten their own necklaces, zip jackets in seconds instead of minutes, and throw balls for their dogs again. These are the moments that change lives," Wigginton said.
The Source
Information in this article came from a UT Dallas Nature paper and UT Dallas' Dr. Jane Wigginton.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scientific American
8 hours ago
- Scientific American
Trump Order Gives Political Appointees Vast Powers over Research Grants
US President Donald Trump issued an expansive executive order (EO) yesterday that would centralize power and upend the process that the US government has used for decades to award research grants. If implemented, political appointees — not career civil servants, including scientists — would have control over grants, from initial funding calls to final review. This is the Trump administration's latest move to assert control over US science. The EO, titled 'Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking', orders each US agency head to designate an appointee to develop a grant-review process that will 'advance the President's policy priorities'. Those processes must not fund grants that advance 'anti-American values' and instead prioritize funding for institutions committed to achieving Trump's plan for 'gold-standard science'. (That plan, issued in May, calls for the US government to promote 'transparent, rigorous, and impactful' science, but has been criticized for its potential to increase political interference in research.) Impacts might be felt immediately: the latest order directs US agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to halt new funding opportunities, which are calls for researchers to submit applications for grants on certain topics. They will be paused until agencies put their new review processes in place. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Trump's EO comes after the US Senate — which, along with the House, ultimately controls US government spending — has, in recent weeks, mostly rejected his proposals to slash the federal budget for science, totalling nearly US$200 billion annually. The White House did not respond to questions from Nature about the EO. Negative reaction Trump, a Republican, has previously used EOs, which can direct government agencies but cannot alter existing laws, to effect policy change. In January, on his first day in office, he signed a slew of EOs with wide-ranging effects, from pulling the United States out of the Paris climate agreement to cutting the federal workforce, which had included nearly 300,000 scientists before he took office. Scientists and policy specialists have lambasted the latest EO on social media. 'This is a shocking executive order that undermines the very idea of open inquiry,' Casey Dreier, director of space policy for the Planetary Society, an advocacy group in Pasadena, California, posted to Bluesky. Also on Bluesky, Jeremy Berg, a former director of the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences, called it a 'power grab'. Speaking to Nature, he said: 'That power is something that has not been exercised at all in the past by political appointees.' In a statement, Zoe Lofgren, a Democratic member of the US House of Representatives from California, called the EO 'obscene'. It could lead to political appointees 'standing between you and a cutting-edge cancer-curing clinical trial', she said. The EO justifies the changes to the grant-awarding process by casting doubts on past choices: it accuses the US National Science Foundation (NSF) of awarding grants to educators with anti-American ideologies and to projects on diversity, equity and inclusion, which are disfavoured by the Trump team. It also points to senior researchers at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Stanford University in California who have resigned over accusations of data falsification. To 'strengthen oversight' of grants, the EO imposes several restrictions, including prohibiting grants that promote 'illegal immigration' and prohibiting grant recipients from promoting 'racial preferences' in their work or denying that sex is binary. In some cases, the restrictions seem to contradict Congressional mandates. For instance, the NSF has, for decades, been required by law to broaden participation in science of people from under-represented groups — an action that takes race into consideration. In addition to these broader restrictions, the EO directs grant approvals to prioritize certain research institutions, such as those that have 'demonstrated success' in implementing the gold-standard science plan and those with lower 'indirect costs'. As part of its campaign to downsize government spending and reduce the power of elite US universities, the Trump administration has repeatedly tried to cap these costs — used to pay for laboratory electricity and administrative staff, for instance. It has proposed a flat 15% rate for grants awarded by agencies such as the NSF and the US Department of Energy, but federal courts have so far blocked such policies. Some institutions with the highest indirect-cost rates are children's hospitals, Berg told Nature. 'Does that mean they're just not going to prioritize research at children's hospitals?' he asks. Out for review At the heart of the grant-awarding process is peer review. Project proposals have typically had to pass watchful panels of independent scientists who scored and approved funding. 'Nothing in this order shall be construed to discourage or prevent the use of peer review methods,' the EO notes, 'provided that peer review recommendations remain advisory' to the senior appointees. The EO worries many researchers, including Doug Natelson, a physicist at Rice University in Houston, Texas. 'This looks like an explicit attempt to destroy peer review for federal science grants,' he says. Programme officers at agencies, who have been stewards of the grant-review process, are similarly alarmed. 'The executive order is diminishing the role of programme officers and their autonomy to make judgments about the quality of the science,' says an NSF employee who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak with the press. 'That's disheartening, to say the least.'
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Scientists discover surprising cause of massive flood that unleashed more than 20 billion gallons of water: 'It was so unexpected'
Scientists discover surprising cause of massive flood that unleashed more than 20 billion gallons of water: 'It was so unexpected' Scientists were left perplexed by the impact of an undetected flood in Greenland that occurred over a decade ago. The findings are raising as many questions as answers. What's happening? Unknown to researchers at the time, Greenland experienced a major flood in 2014 when over 24 billion gallons of water burst through an ice sheet 300 feet thick. As Live Science reported, this is the first known instance of meltwater breaking through the ice. The discovery was recorded in a study published by the journal Nature Geoscience in July 2025. The study's lead author, Jade Bowling, said in a statement released by Lancaster University: "When we first saw this, because it was so unexpected, we thought there was an issue with our data. However, as we went deeper into our analysis, it became clear that what we were observing was the aftermath of a huge flood of water escaping from underneath the ice." The phenomenon confounds existing assumptions that meltwater flows to the base of the ice sheet from the surface and then out to sea. The study indicates that the water can move in the opposing direction. Why is the discovery concerning? The research shows that there's a great deal we don't understand about Greenland's rapidly diminishing ice cover. It was only recently that scientists became aware of the existence of subglacial lakes beneath Greenland's ice sheet. Another researcher from Lancaster University, Amber Leeson, said the study was surprising in many ways: "It has taught us new and unexpected things about the way that ice sheets can respond to extreme inputs of surface meltwater, and emphasised the need to better understand the ice sheet's complex hydrological system, both now and in the future." Greenland is home to the largest ice sheet in the world after Antarctica. Because of planet-heating pollution caused by human activity, that crucial ice is being lost at a ruinous rate of 33 million tons every hour. This leads to rising sea levels and more intense extreme weather events; in essence, increasing global temperatures are akin to "steroids for weather." What's being done about Greenland's ice sheet melting? The study provides key insights and highlights the urgency of taking decisive action to reduce harmful pollution and slow the loss of vital sea ice. The efforts begin with raising awareness and having valuable conversations with friends and family. We can all contribute to the broader effort by embracing clean energy and pressuring our elected officials to do more. Do you think our power grid needs to be upgraded? Definitely Only in some states Not really I'm not sure Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Scientists find possible artefacts of oldest known Wallacean hominids in Indonesia
SOPPENG, Indonesia (Reuters) -Scientists have found a series of stone tools on Indonesia's Sulawesi island they say may be evidence of humans living 1.5 million years ago on islands between Asia and Australia, the earliest known humans in the Wallacea region. Archaeologists from Australia and Indonesia found the small, chipped tools, used to cut little animals and carve rocks, under the soil in the region of Soppeng in South Sulawesi. Radioactive tracing of these tools and the teeth of animals found around the site were dated at up to 1.48 million years ago. The findings could transform theories of early human migrations, according to an article the archaeologists published in the journal Nature in August. The earliest Wallacean humans, pre-historic persons known as Homo Erectus, were thought to have only settled in Indonesia's Flores island and Philippines' Luzon island around 1.02 million years ago, as they were thought to be incapable of distant sea travel, proving the significance of the Sulawesi findings in theories of migration. 'These were artefacts made by ancient humans who lived on the earth long before the evolution of our species, Homo Sapiens,' said Adam Brumm, lead archaeologist from Griffith University in Queensland, Australia. 'We think Homo Erectus somehow got from the Asian mainland across a significant ocean gap to this island, Sulawesi, at least 1 million years ago," Brumm said. Wallacea is a region in Eastern Indonesia including several islands such as Sulawesi, Lombok, Flores, Timor, Sumbawa that lie between Borneo and Java and Australia and New Guinea. The region is named for the naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace who studied the fauna and flora of the area. Solve the daily Crossword
