No improvement by amphetamine on learned non‐use, attempts, success or movement in skilled reaching by the rat after motor cortex stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amphetamine (AMPH) has been proposed as a treatment for post-stroke motor deficits when coupled with symptom-relevant physical rehabilitation. Whereas a number of experimental studies report improvements in endpoint measures of skilled reaching for food by rats, there has been no assessment of whether beneficial effects extend to overcoming learned non-use of the limb in the acute post-stroke period or to the qualitative deficits in movement in the chronic post-stroke period. In addition to evaluating the effects of AMPH on success, these were the objectives of the present study. In three different reaching experiments, groups of rats were pre-trained in skilled reaching for food prior to receiving a motor cortex stroke via pial removal. Postoperatively the rats received periodic AMPH treatment and daily rehabilitation. In the acute post-stroke period, AMPH failed to prevent the development of learned non-use of the limb, and in the acute and chronic period failed to improve recovery of reaching success, and also failed to improve the qualitative aspects of reaching movements. Nevertheless, AMPH did enhance adjunct non-reaching movements of locomotion, rearing and turning. The results are discussed in relation to the idea that the beneficial effects of post-stroke AMPH treatment do not extend to all movements, especially the movements of a forelimb in retrieving and consuming food.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".