MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2299993074 · doi:10.1093/chemse/bjw018

Sex and Genotype Differences in Odor Detection in the 3×Tg-AD and 5XFAD Mouse Models of Alzheimer’s Disease at 6 Months of Age

2016· article· en· W2299993074 on OpenAlexafffund
Kyle M. Roddick, Amelia D. Roberts, Heather M. Schellinck, Richard E. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueChemical Senses · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGenotypeDiseaseOdorBiologyNeuroscienceGeneticsPhysiologyMedicinePathologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deficits in odor identification and detection are early symptoms of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Two transgenic mouse models of AD, the 5XFAD and the 3×Tg-AD mice and their wildtype controls, were assessed for olfactory detection with decreasing concentrations of ethyl acetate in a go no-go operant olfactometer task at 6 months of age. For both the 5XFAD and their B6SJLF1 wildtype littermates, females made fewer errors in detecting the ethyl acetate than males on all but the lowest odor concentrations. Female 5XFAD mice performed slightly better than their female wildtype littermates on the higher odor concentrations, though not at the lowest concentration. The 3×Tg-AD females showed decreased olfactory detection compared with their wildtype B6129S1 controls, whereas there was no difference in the males. Therefore, although the 5XFAD mice showed no olfactory detection deficits, female 3×Tg-AD mice had impaired olfactory detection at low odor concentrations but males did not. This difference in odor detection should be considered in studies of olfactory learning and memory, as differences in performance may be due to sensory rather than cognitive factors, though detection seems unimpaired at high odor concentrations.

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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.120 · 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

Citations53
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemical SensesSame topicOlfactory and Sensory Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207