Advancing the spontaneous hypertensive rat model of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To advance the spontaneous hypertensive rat (SHR) model of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), experiments examined the SHR in tasks recognized to assess functioning of the prefrontal cortex or dorsal striatal. Tasks included odor-delayed win-shift (nonspatial working and reference memory), win-stay (habit learning), and attentional set-shifting (attention and behavioral flexibility). In Experiment 1, the SHR strain was compared with Wistar-Kyoto (WKY) and Wistar-Kyoto Hypertensive (WKHT) strains on the first 2 tasks. In Experiment 2, oral methylphenidate (1.5 mg/kg) and vehicle (water) were evaluated on all 3 tasks in SHR and WKY strains. Results demonstrated that the SHR made significantly more errors in the odor-delayed win-shift, win-stay, and attentional set-shifting tasks compared with the WKY. Similar performances in the WKY and WKHT indicated that deficits observed in the SHR were not related solely to hypertension. Treating the SHR with methylphenidate eliminated strain differences in all 3 tasks. These findings provide evidence that the SHR is a valid model for studying ADHD-associated neurocognitive deficits. Moreover, the current behavioral approach is appropriate to assess novel medications developed to target ADHD-associated neurocognitive deficits.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it