Comparing Oral Lithium Carbonate and Intraperitoneal Lithium Chloride Chronic Administrations on Rats’ Activity Levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares the effects produced by two modalities of lithium administration on rats' activity levels. Lithium was administered for 21 days either as carbonate in the diet (2 g in 2 liters of water and 1,500 g lab chow) or as chloride through single daily intraperitoneal injections (1 mEq/kg LiCl). Both treatments resulted in similar decreases in spontaneous activity and exploratory behavior, as recorded in an open field with a hole-board. Neither treatment influenced the amount of food consumed on a daily basis nor the rate of growth as manifested by weight gains over the period considered, suggesting that these treatments were not adversely affecting the animals' health. Both treatments increased water intake over control levels, this effect being most marked with the diet lithium carbonate administration, particularly during the second week of treatment. This latter modality of lithium administration, but not the injections of lithium chloride, significantly increased NaCl intake over control levels.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".