MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Analysis of sensory, motor and cognitive functions of the coloboma (C3Sn.Cg-<i>Cm</i>/J) mutant mouse

2011· article· en· W1986716625 on OpenAlexafffund
Roger N. Gunn, Mary-Elyn Keenan, Richard E. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes Brain & Behavior · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPrepulse inhibitionHabituationPsychologyOpen fieldSpontaneous alternationMotor coordinationOdorNeuroscienceWorking memoryAudiologyCognitionHippocampal formationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The coloboma mutant mouse (C3Sn.Cg-Cm/J) has been proposed as an animal model of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) because of excessive locomotion in the open field, yet few studies have looked at other behavioral measures in these mice. We analyzed activity levels of male and female Cm mice and their littermate controls (C3H) in two different types of open field, as well as their hearing (acoustic startle) and sensorimotor gating (prepulse inhibition), pain responsiveness (tail flick and hot plate), motor control (balance beam), motor learning (Rotarod), hippocampal working memory (spontaneous alternation in a Y-maze) and olfactory learning and memory (conditioned odor preference). We found hyperactivity and a lack of habituation in the small and large open fields and a deficit in prepulse inhibition in these mice, as well as a learning deficit in male Cm mice in conditioned odor preference but no deficits in pain perception or spontaneous alternation. Results from the rotarod and balance beam tasks indicate that Cm mice have severe motor co-ordination and balance problems compared to their C3H littermates, suggesting that Cm mice may be a more suitable model of ataxia than ADHD.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.381
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenes Brain & BehaviorSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207