MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144146327 · doi:10.2174/156720209789630357

Chronic Methylphenidate-Effects Over Circadian Cycle of Young and Adult Rats Submitted to Open-Field and Object Recognition Tests

2009· article· en· W2144146327 on OpenAlexaff
Karin Martins Gomes, Renan P. Souza, Samira S. Valvassori, Gislaine Z. Réus, Cecília G. Inácio, Marcio Roberto Martins, Clarissa M. Comim, João Quevedo

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Neurovascular Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethylphenidateCircadian rhythmOpen fieldHabituationPsychologySession (web analytics)Developmental psychologyNeuroscienceClinical psychologyPsychiatryComputer scienceAttention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study age-, circadian rhythm- and methylphenidate administration- effect on open field habituation and object recognition were analyzed. Young and adult male Wistar rats were treated with saline or methylphenidate 2.0 mg/kg for 28 days. Experiments were performed during the light and the dark cycle. Locomotor activity was significantly altered by circadian cycle and methylphenidate treatment during the training session and by drug treatment during the testing session. Exploratory activity was significantly modulated by age during the training session and by age and drug treatment during the testing session. Object recognition memory was altered by cycle at the training session; by age 1.5 h later and by cycle and age 24 h after the training session. These results show that methylphenidate treatment was the major modulator factor on open-field test while cycle and age had an important effect on object recognition experiment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Neurovascular ResearchSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207