Sex matters: repetitive mild traumatic brain injury in adolescent rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Whether sex differences contribute to the heterogeneity of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and repeated mTBI (RmTBI) outcomes in adolescents is unknown. Therefore, this study examined changes in, and differences between, male and female rats following single mTBI and RmTBI. METHODS: ), or sham injuries. Injuries were administered using a lateral impact model that mimics forces common in human mTBI. After the final injury, rats underwent extensive behavioral testing to examine cognition, motor function, and anxiety- and depressive-like behavior. Postmortem analyses investigated gene expression and structural changes in the brain. RESULTS: Many of the outcomes exhibited a sex-dependent response to RmTBI. While all rats given RmTBI had deficits in balance, motor coordination, locomotion, and anxiety-like behavior, only male rats given RmTBI had short-term working memory deficits, whereas only females given RmTBI had increased depressive-like behavior. Volumetric and diffusion weighted MRI analyses found that while RmTBI-induced atrophy of the prefrontal cortex was greater in female rats, only the male rats exhibited worse white matter integrity in the corpus callosum following RmTBI. Sex-dependent changes in brain expression of mRNA for glial fibrillary acidic protein, myelin basic protein, and tau protein were also observed following injury. INTERPRETATION: These findings suggest that in adolescent mTBI, sex matters; and future studies incorporating both male and females are warranted to provide a greater understanding of injury prognosis and better inform clinical practice.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".