Dissociable cognitive impairments in two strains of transgenic Alzheimer’s disease mice revealed by a battery of object-based tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Object recognition tasks detect cognitive deficits in transgenic Alzheimer's disease (AD) mouse models. Object recognition, however, is not a unitary process, and there are many uncharacterized facets of object processing with relevance to AD. We therefore systematically evaluated object processing in 5xFAD and 3xTG AD mice to clarify the nature of object recognition-related deficits. Twelve-month-old male and female 5xFAD and 3xTG mice were assessed on tasks for object identity recognition, spatial recognition, and multisensory object perception. Memory and multisensory perceptual impairments were observed, with interesting dissociations between transgenic AD strains and sex that paralleled neuropathological changes. Overreliance on the widespread "object recognition" task threatens to slow discovery of potentially significant and clinically relevant behavioural effects related to this multifaceted cognitive function. The current results support the use of carefully designed object-based test batteries to clarify the relationship between "object recognition" impairments and specific aspects of AD pathology in rodent models.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".