Behavioral and Neural Correlates of Acute and Scheduled Hunger in C57BL/6 Mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In rodents, daily feeding schedules induce food anticipatory activity (FAA) rhythms with formal properties suggesting mediation by food-entrained circadian oscillators (FEOs). The search for the neuronal substrate of FEOs responsible for FAA is an active area of research, but studies spanning several decades have yet to identify unequivocally a brain region required for FAA. Variability of results across studies leads to questions about underlying biology versus methodology. Here we describe in C57BL/6 male mice the effects of varying the 'dose' of caloric restriction (0%, 60%, 80%, 110%) on the expression of FAA as measured by a video-based analysis system, and on the induction of c-Fos in brain regions that have been implicated in FAA. We determined that more severe caloric restriction (60%) leads to a faster onset of FAA with increased magnitude. Using the 60% caloric restriction, we found little evidence for unique signatures of neuronal activation in the brains of mice anticipating a daily mealtime compared to mice that were fasted acutely or fed ad-libitum-even in regions such as the dorsomedial and ventrolateral hypothalamus, nucleus accumbens, and cerebellum that have previously been implicated in FAA. These results underscore the importance of feeding schedule parameters in determining quantitative features of FAA in mice, and demonstrate dissociations between behavioral FAA and neural activity in brain areas thought to harbor FEOs or participate in their entrainment or output.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".