MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809304242 · doi:10.1002/dev.21626

Predictors of social instability stress effects on social interaction and anxiety in adolescent male rats

2018· article· en· W2809304242 on OpenAlexafffund
Travis E. Hodges, Cheryl M. McCormick

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Psychobiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicNeuroendocrine regulation and behavior
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAzərbaycan Milli Elmlər Akademiyası
KeywordsNoveltyPsychologyStressorNovelty seekingCTL*Developmental psychologyAnxietySocial relationSocial stressSocial anxietySocial behaviorClinical psychologySocial psychologyMedicinePsychiatryImmune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adolescence is an important phase of development of social behaviors, which may be disrupted by the experience of stressors. We previously reported that exposure to social instability stress in adolescence (SS; postnatal day [PND] 30-45) in rats reduced social interactions with unfamiliar peers compared with non-stressed controls (CTL). In experiment 1, we replicated the effect of SS on social interaction and found that the pattern of neural activations based on Fos immunohistochemistry in brain regions during social interactions differed for SS and CTL rats. In experiment 2, we found that individual differences in novelty-seeking behavior on PND 30 and SS exposure were unique predictors of anxiety in the elevated plus maze on PND 46, and interacted to predict social interaction on PND 47; among high novelty-seeking rats, SS and CTL rats do not differ, whereas among low-novelty seeking rats, SS rats engaged in less social interaction than did CTL rats. Thus, high novelty-seeking may be a resilience factor against the effects of social stressors in adolescence.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.664

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations22
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental PsychobiologySame topicNeuroendocrine regulation and behaviorFrench-language works237,207