Modelling and optimization of a deformable mirror for laser beam control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motor problems occur early in some patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and as the disease progresses many patients develop motor dysfunction. Motor dysfunction has been reported in some mouse models of AD, including the 5xFAD mouse, thus this model may be particularly useful for studying motor dysfunction in AD. In order to determine the extent of motor dysfunction in these mice, we tested 11-13 month old female 5xFAD and wildtype (WT) control mice in a battery of motor behaviour tasks. The 5xFAD mice showed hind limb clasping, weighed less and had slower righting reflexes than WT mice. In the open field, the 5xFAD mice travelled a shorter distance than the WT mice, spent less time moving and had a slower movement speed. The 5xFAD mice fell faster than the WT mice from the balance beam, wire suspension, grid suspension and rotarod tasks, indicating dysfunctions in balance, grip strength, motor co-ordination and motor learning. The 5xFAD mice had a short, shuffling gait with a shorter stride length than WT mice and had a slower swim speed. The 5xFAD mice also failed to show an acoustic startle response, likely due to motor dysfunction and previously reported hearing impairment. The 5xFAD mice did not show deficits in the ability of peripheral motor nerves to drive muscle output, suggesting that motor impairments are not due to dysfunction in peripheral motor nerves. These results indicate that the aged 5xFAD mice are deficient in numerous motor behaviours, and suggest that these mice may prove to be a good model for studying the mechanisms of motor dysfunction in AD, and motor behaviour might prove useful for assessing the efficacy of AD therapeutics. Motor dysfunction in 5xFAD mice must also be considered in behavioural tests of sensory and cognitive function so that performance is not confounded by impaired locomotor or swimming behaviour.
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 | 0.000 | 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".