Can a reward-based behavioural test be used to investigate the effect of protein–energy malnutrition on hippocampal function?
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
Our laboratory is investigating the effects of protein-energy malnutrition (PEM) on cognitive outcome following global ischemia. Here, we investigated whether PEM independently impairs working memory in the T-maze and if the associated food reward reverses PEM. Gerbils were fed 12.5% (control diet) or 2% protein. A loss of body weight (20.1%) in the 2% protein group and decreased food intake and serum albumin concentration compared to controls (17.5% and 18.2%, respectively) indicated that PEM was achieved. Based on T-maze criterion frequently used in ischemia studies, no difference was observed in the mean (+/- SEM) number of trials required (control 5.2 +/- 0.7; PEM 4.9 +/- 0.4; p = 0.758) or the number of animals reaching criterion (control 10/12; PEM 12/12; p = 0.140). Using more stringent criterion, PEM animals required fewer trials (control 7.3 +/- 0.7; PEM 5.4 +/- 0.4; p = 0.035), and more reached criterion (control 8/12; PEM 12/12; p = 0.028). PEM may increase motivation to obtain a food reward.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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