Looking beyond the standard version of the Morris water task in the assessment of mouse models of cognitive deficits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most studies investigating hippocampal-dependent learning and memory in mouse models of disease use the standard version of the Morris water task (MWT), in which a place is learned over several days. While useful in determining if there are learning and memory deficits, often it is not clear if memory acquisition, consolidation, or retrieval is affected. For rats, we developed a variant of the task in which we added a single-massed training session to a new location after the standard distributed version of the MWT. Using this version of the task, competition between these two spatial representations can then be assessed in a probe trial. We have found in rat models of Alzheimer's disease that this paradigm can detect subtle impairments that are often missed in the standard version of the MWT. To the best of our knowledge, MWT paradigm with a single-massed training session have never been used for mice. We sought to validate this paradigm for the use of assessing mouse models of disease. In the first two experiments, control mice did not have a preference for the new platform location, but instead with extensive training in the massed session displayed a preference for both the old and new locations. In the third experiment, a novel mouse model of Alzheimer's disease was impaired in the standard version of the MWT, but not in the massed training phase of this paradigm. Importantly, these data demonstrate that our paradigm is more informative in characterizing spatial learning and memory in mouse models of disease.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".