Impaired structural correlates of memory in Alzheimer's disease mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The healthy adult brain demonstrates robust learning-induced neuroanatomical plasticity. While altered neuroanatomical plasticity is suspected to be a factor mitigating the progressive cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease (AD), it is not known to what extent this plasticity is affected by AD. We evaluated whether spatial learning and memory-induced neuroanatomical plasticity are diminished in an adult mouse model of AD (APP mice) featuring amyloid beta-driven cognitive and cerebrovascular dysfunction. We also evaluated the effect of early, long-term pioglitazone-treatment on functional hyperemia, spatial learning and memory, and associated neuroanatomical plasticity. Using high-resolution post-mortem MRI and deformation-based morphometry, we demonstrate spatial learning and memory-induced focal volume increase in the hippocampus of wild-type mice, an effect that was severely attenuated in APP mice, consistent with their unsuccessful performance in the spatial Morris water maze. These findings implicate impaired neuroanatomical plasticity as an important contributing factor to cognitive deficits in the APP mouse model of AD. Pioglitazone-treatment in APP mice completely rescued functional hyperemia and exerted beneficial effects on spatial learning and memory-recall, but it did not improve hippocampal plasticity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".