Comparison of anorexia, lethargy, and fever induced by bacterial and viral mimetics in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although it has been established that some acute phase responses present differently depending on whether a virus or bacteria activates the innate immune system, it has not yet been established whether fever and sickness behaviors, such as anorexia and lethargy, present differently. We therefore investigated the effects of administering lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and polyinosinic : polycytidylic acid (poly I:C) on body temperature, food intake, body mass, and activity (cage activity and wheel running). Male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly assigned to receive an intraperitoneal injection of one of LPS (75 microg/kg or 250 microg/kg), poly I:C (3000 microg/kg or 4000 microg/kg), or saline. Administration of LPS or poly I:C induced fever, anorexia, and lethargy. Although voluntary wheel running and cage activity were both significantly reduced after administration of LPS or poly I:C, they were not affected equally. Indeed voluntary wheel running was decreased on average by approximately 30% more than cage activity regardless of the dose or type of mimetic administered. Our results indicate that poly I:C is less effective at inducing anorexia, lethargy, and fever in rats than is LPS, and that avoidance of exercise in animals and humans during infection is likely to be a more prominent feature of illness than is avoidance of routine daily activity.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".