Lamotrigine Reduces Inflammatory Response and Ameliorates Executive Function Deterioration in an Alzheimer’s-Like Mouse Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease (AD) has been described in the literature, to be associated with impairment of executive function which develops early in the course of disease, and an effective treatment for this clinical feature remains elusive. Preclinical studies have implied that lamotrigine, an antiepileptic agent, could be a potential treatment for executive dysfunction in AD patients. Although there have been promising results in previous studies with lamotrigine, executive function has never been measured using animal models. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of lamotrigine on executive function and determine whether lamotrigine can attenuate inflammatory response in an AD mouse model. Nontransgenic and transgenic mice were treated with lamotrigine (0 or 30 mg/kg/day) in a standard laboratory chow diet starting at 3 months of age. After 6 months of continuous lamotrigine administration, there was a marked improvement in executive function and a significant attenuation in the expression of proinflammatory cytokines. These results suggest that lamotrigine could ameliorate executive dysfunction and brain inflammatory response in the mouse model of AD and early lamotrigine intervention may be a promising therapeutic strategy for AD.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".