A Cognitive Rehabilitation Paradigm Effective in Male Rats Lacks Efficacy in Female Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive dysfunction, as a consequence of dementia, is a significant cause of morbidity lacking efficacious treatment. Females comprise at least half of this demographic but have been vastly underrepresented in preclinical studies. The current study addressed this gap by assessing the protective efficacy of physical exercise and cognitive activity on learning and memory outcomes in a rat model of vascular dementia. Forty ovariectomized Sprague-Dawley rats (∼6 months old) were exposed to either a diet high in saturated fats and refined sugars or standard laboratory chow and underwent either chronic bilateral carotid occlusion or Sham surgery. Learning and memory abilities were evaluated using standard cognitive outcomes over the ensuing 6 months, followed by histologic analyses of hippocampal CA1 neurons. In Experiment 1, we confirmed hypoperfusion-induced cognitive dysfunction using a 2 × 2 (Surgery × Diet) experimental design, without alterations in hippocampal architecture. In Experiment 2, hypoperfused animals were either exposed to alternating days of physical (wheel running) and cognitive activity (modified Hebb-Williams maze) or sedentary housing. In contrast to males, this combination rehabilitation paradigm did not improve cognition or histopathologic outcomes in hypoperfused animals. These findings, highlighting differences between female and male animals, show the necessity of including both sexes in preclinical experimentation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".