Preadaptation to the feeding schedule does not eliminate activity-based anorexia in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To test whether activity-based anorexia (ABA) still occurs after preadaptation to the feeding schedule, 20 rats were first exposed to a feeding schedule of one 90-min meal per day until adaptation occurred (measured by maintenance of stable body weight). Then, during ABA training, half the rats (wheel group) were confined in running wheels except during the daily meal, and half (cage group) were not. Wheel running suppressed feeding--that is, food intake in the wheel group was less than that in the cage group. Also, the rats in the wheel group lost weight, whereas those in the cage group did not. Wheel running increased over days. Thus, the defining characteristics of ABA were evident in rats that were not subjected to ABA training until after they had become well adapted to the feeding schedule. These findings support the view that the suppression of feeding produced by wheel running triggers the vicious circle of ABA. They also cast doubt on the hypothesis that activity-induced interference with adaptation to the feeding schedule plays a key role in causing ABA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".