Can a reward-based behavioural test be used to investigate the effect of protein–energy malnutrition on hippocampal function?
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.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".