MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139054101 · doi:10.1037/0735-7044.121.6.1415

Acute administration of interleukin-1β disrupts motor learning.

2007· article· en· W2139054101 on OpenAlexafffund
Susan J. Larson, Kelly Hartle, Tammy L. Ivanco

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Neuroscience · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for InnovationUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsProinflammatory cytokineMotor learningPsychologyHippocampusNeuroscienceMedicineDevelopmental psychologyInternal medicineInflammation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proinflammatory cytokines have been shown to disrupt the normal transfer of short-term memory to long-term storage sites. Previous research has focused predominantly on the effect of cytokines on hippocampus-mediated spatial learning. To further understand the effects of cytokines on learning and memory, the authors evaluated the effects of interleukin-1beta (IL-1beta) on a motor learning task. Male Long-Evans rats were rewarded with food pellets after they traversed a runway. The runway was either flat (control condition) or had up-ended dowels (motor learning condition). Subjects traversed the flat runway or dowel task for 5 days, 10 trials per day, and were treated with either saline or with 4 microg/kg IL-1beta immediately after training on the first 2 days. Rats in the motor learning task treated with IL-1beta were consistently slower at traversing the runway. IL-1beta did not impair performance in the control condition; rats in the flat condition performed similarly regardless of whether they were treated with saline or IL-1beta. These data are the first evidence demonstrating IL-1beta can disrupt performance in a motor learning task.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.839

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral NeuroscienceSame topicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration MechanismsFrench-language works237,207