MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166294321 · doi:10.2174/156720510791050948

Effect of Synthetic Cannabinoid HU210 on Memory Deficits and Neuropathology in Alzheimers Disease Mouse Model

2010· article· en· W2166294321 on OpenAlexafffund
B. Chen, Kelley Bromley‐Brits, Guiqiong He, Fang Cai, X. Zhang, Weihong Song

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Alzheimer Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNeuropathologyNeuroscienceCannabinoidSynthetic cannabinoidsExcitotoxicityPharmacologyMorris water navigation taskCannabinoid receptorNeurogenesisMedicinePsychologyDiseaseInternal medicineGlutamate receptorHippocampusReceptorAntagonist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cannabinoids have been shown to increase neurogenesis in adult brain, as well as protect neurons from excitotoxicity, calcium influx, inflammation, and ischemia. Recent studies have shown that synthetic cannabinoids can alleviate water maze impairments in rats treated with intracranial amyloid beta protein (Abeta); however it is unknown whether this effect is due to the cannabinoids' anti-inflammatory properties or whether it affects Abeta processing. Here we investigate whether cannabinoids have any effect on Alzheimer's disease in vivo. We found that HU210, a potent synthetic cannabinoid, did not improve water maze performance or a contextual fear conditioning task in an APP23/PS45 double transgenic mouse model of AD. HU210 had no effect on APP processing and Abeta generation, as well as neuritic plaque formation in the brains of AD transgenic mice. Our study showed that synthetic cannabinoid HU210 had no beneficial effects on AD neuropathology and behavioral deficits of AD model mice, which advises caution of such drug's application in AD therapies.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations32
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Alzheimer ResearchSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207