Is behavioral sensitization to ethanol associated with contextual conditioning in mice?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Behavioral sensitization to drugs of abuse seems to involve learning processes. In mice, ethanol-induced locomotor sensitization is potentiated by repeated pairing of ethanol (EtOH) injections and the testing chamber. The present study aimed to test: (1). the association between the performance in a contextual conditioning task and the development of behavioral sensitization to EtOH in mice; (2). whether EtOH sensitization would be expressed in a different testing environment. Male albino Swiss mice (n=72) were initially submitted to a contextual fear conditioning task. After 2 weeks without manipulation, the animals received daily i.p. injections of 2.2 g/kg EtOH (n=52) or saline (n=20), for 21 days. They were tested weekly for locomotor activity in activity cages. After 1 week of withdrawal, all mice received 2.2 g/kg EtOH and had their locomotor activity recorded in an open-field. According to the locomotor behavior displayed along the 21-day treatment, EtOH-treated mice were classified as sensitized (n=15) or non-sensitized (n=15). When these subgroups and saline-treated mice were compared for the freezing response in the conditioning test, sensitized mice displayed a greater freezing time than non-sensitized mice. When challenged with EtOH in the open-field, none of the EtOH-treated subgroups expressed behavioral sensitization. These results suggest that the development of EtOH sensitization seems to be positively associated with contextual learning, and further confirms that the expression of sensitization is highly dependent on contextual cues.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".