MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989805577 · doi:10.1037/a0014736

Early maternal separation increases symptoms of activity-based anorexia in male and female rats.

2009· article· en· W1989805577 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie Hancock, Virginia L. Grant

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology Animal Behavior Processes · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdipose Tissue and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnorexiaPsychologyMaternal deprivationHormoneEndocrinologyInternal medicineBody weightFood intakeDevelopmental psychologyCorticosteroneAffect (linguistics)PhysiologyFood deliveryMedicineCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Running activates the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, increasing the release of stress hormones known to exert anorexic effects. HPA axis reactivity is strongly influenced by early postnatal manipulations, including removal of pups from the dam for short (handling) or prolonged (maternal separation) durations during the preweaning period. The authors examined the effects of handling and maternal separation on food intake, body weight loss, and running rates of young adult male and female rats in the activity-based anorexia (ABA) paradigm. Postnatal treatment did not affect adaptation to a 1-hr restricted feeding schedule before the introduction of wheel running. During the ABA paradigm, maternally separated animals lost weight faster, ate less, ran more, and required fewer days to reach removal criterion compared with handled rats. Females were particularly vulnerable. These findings indicate that early postnatal treatment and sex influence ABA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations42
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Psychology Animal Behavior ProcessesSame topicAdipose Tissue and MetabolismFrench-language works237,207