Genotypic differences in ethanol sensitivity in two tests of motor incoordination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motor incoordination is frequently used as a behavioral index of intoxication by drugs that depress the central nervous system. Two tasks that have been used to assay incoordination in mice, the balance beam and the grid test, were evaluated to optimize aspects of apparatus and testing procedures for studying genetic differences. Mice of eight inbred strains were given one of several doses of ethanol or saline and tested for intoxication. Strains differed in sensitivity to ethanol in both tests, indicating a significant influence of genotype on ethanol sensitivity. For the balance beam, the width of the beam affected the strain sensitivity pattern, and only the widest beam worked well at all doses. For the grid test, both ethanol dose and the time after drug injection affected strains differentially. Although the behavioral sign of intoxication recorded for both tests was a foot-slip error, the correlations of strain means for ethanol sensitivity across the two tasks were generally not significant. This suggests that the genes influencing ethanol sensitivity in the two tasks are mostly different. These results make clear that a single set of task parameters is insufficient to characterize genetic influences on behavior. Several other issues affect the interpretation of data using these tests.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".