The Use of Pigs as a Translational Model for Studying Neurodegenerative Diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the move to study neurodegenerative disease using larger animal models with brains that are more similar to humans has gained interest. While pigs have been used for various biomedical applications and research, it has only been recently that they have been used to study neurodegenerative diseases due to their neuroanatomically similar gyrencephalic brains and similar neurophysiological processes as seen in humans. This review focuses on the use of pigs in the study of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI). AD is considered the most common neurodegenerative disease in elderly populations. Head impacts from falls are the most common form of injury in the elderly and recent literature has shown an association between repetitive head impacts and the development of AD. This review summarizes research into the pathological mechanisms underlying AD and TBI as well as the advantages and disadvantages of using pigs in the neuroscientific study of these disease processes. With the lack of successful therapeutics for neurodegenerative diseases, and an increasing elderly population, the use of pigs may provide a better translational model for understanding and treating these diseases.
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) | 0.002 | 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".