Caffeine as a Performance-Enhancing Drug in Rats: Sex, Dose, Housing, and Task Considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Past animal studies of the performance-enhancing properties of stimulant drugs, such as caffeine, may have suffered from a number of procedural and ethical problems. For example. the housing condition of the animals was often not taken into consideration. As well, endurance tests, such as the forced swim task, sometimes involved ethically (and procedurally) questionable interference with natural swimming behaviour. Some of the manipulations, such as attaching a weight to the swimming animal's tail to increase the difficulty of the task and using mortality as a dependent variable, seem grotesque, even unnecessary. In this experiment, the performance-enhancing effects of caffeine in a modified forced swim task and a dominance task were evaluated using male and female rats as subjects (N=60), housed in either enriched or isolated environments. Analysis indicated that rats respond to caffeine as an interactive function of sex, housing, dose, and task characteristics. It was concluded that performance-enhancing properties of stimulant drugs may be the result of a complex interplay of variables, making simple generalizations questionable.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".