Observer-rated ataxia: rating scales for assessment of genetic differences in ethanol-induced intoxication in mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identification of genetic and physiological mechanisms underlying a drug's or mutation's effects on motor performance could be aided by the existence of a simple observation-based rating scale of ataxia for mice. Rating scales were developed to assess ataxia after ethanol (2.75, 3.0, and 3.25 g/kg) in nine inbred mouse strains. Each scale independently rates a single behavior. Raters, blinded to dose, scored four behaviors (splay of hind legs, wobbling, nose down, and belly drag) at each of four time points after injection. The severities of hind leg splaying and wobbling were quantifiable, whereas nose down and belly dragging were expressed in all-or-none fashion. Interrater reliabilities were substantial (0.75 <or= r <or= 0.99). Splay scores (rated 0-5) displayed significant effects of strain, dose, and time point. Wobbling (rated 0-4) was dependent on strain and time point. Ethanol affected wobbling (most strains scored >0 at some time), but all doses were equally effective. Incidence of nose down and belly dragging behaviors increased strain dependently after ethanol, but strains did not differentially respond to dose. Ethanol-induced splaying was modestly, and negatively, genetically correlated with wobbling. Nose down and belly dragging tended to be associated with splaying and wobbling at later times. Four distinct ataxia-related behaviors were sensitive to ethanol. Strains differed in ethanol sensitivity for all measures. Modest strain mean correlations among behaviors indicate that these behaviors are probably under control of largely different genes and that ataxia rating scales should rate separate behaviors on discrete scales.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".