MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2538523215 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2016.06.2132

P4‐043: Behavioural Phenotyping of Alzheimer's Disease Model Mice: Understanding Mouse Models of Alzheimer's Disease

2016· article· en· W2538523215 on OpenAlexaff
Richard E. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiseasePsychologyCognitionGenetically modified mouseNeuroscienceGenotypeAlzheimer's diseasePresenilinPSEN1Sex characteristicsConfoundingDevelopmental psychologyPhysiologyTransgeneBiologyMedicineInternal medicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although transgenic mice have been developed as models of Alzheimer's Disease, the behavioural phenotypes of these mice are often quite surprizing. Some behaviours in these mice show age-related deficits while others appear normal. Some deficits are more likely to appear in one sex and not the other. The only way to determine the age-related changes in these mouse models is to conduct lifespan behavioural phenotyping using behavioural bioassays. We have examined the sensory, motor and cognitive performance of both males and females of a number of Alzheimer model mice and their wildtype controls over their lifespan. We examined age-related changes in spatial learning and memory, procedural learning and memory, and olfactory memory in male and female APP/PSEN1 double transgenic, 3x-Tg AD and 5XFAD mouse models of AD and their appropriate control strains between 3 and 18 months of age. The data examines sex differences, sex by genotype and sex by age interactions in each memory system. We also examine sex differences in longevity of each genotype. We found sex differences in a number of learning and memory tasks. There were no genotype or age-related deficits in olfactory memory. The 5xFAD mice had age-related deficits in procedural learning. There were also age-and genotype-related deficits in visuo-spatial memory. Confounding effects of background strain, behavioural measures and housing conditions will be discussed. Each mouse model of AD has different behavioural phenotypes and there are age and sex differences in the degree of behavioural dysfunction, thus behavioural phenotyping of both sexes of each mouse model is essential.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicComputational Drug Discovery Methods→French-language works237,207→