Exhaustive Multi-Parametric Assessment of the Behavioral Array of Daily Activities of Mice Using Cluster and Factor Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using automated supervised behavioral assessment software, we recorded and analyzed 24 h non-interrupted recordings of mice for a duration of 11 days. With the assistance of free R programming, we used correlation matrix-based hierarchical clustering and factor analysis to separate the 33 activities into meaningful clusters and groups without losing the exhaustive nature of the findings. These groups represent novel meaningful behavioral patterns exhibited by mice in home cage. Thirty-three activities were separated into 5 clusters based on dissimilarity between activities and 6 factors based on statistical modeling. Using these two methods, we describe and compare behavioral arrays of two groups of animals: 1. Continuously recorded for 11 days in social isolation and 2. Intermittently socially isolated for recording on days 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10, while socializing on the other days. This is the first work to our knowledge that interprets mouse home cage activities throughout a 24 h period and proposes a base line of a daily routine of a healthy C57Bl/6J mouse that can be used for various experimental paradigms, including disease, neuroinflammation, or drug testing to trace behavioral changes that follow intervention. In this work, we defined the necessary acclimatization period for the 24 h recording paradigm of home cage behavior. We demonstrated the behavioral changes that are associated with the effect of social isolation, intermittent socialization, and re-introduction to a familiar home cage. We provide the full description of the codes used in R.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".