MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972816859 · doi:10.18632/aging.102242

Conclusions from a behavioral aging study on male and female F2 hybrid mice on age-related behavior, buoyancy in water-based tests, and an ethical method to assess lifespan

2019· article· en· W2972816859 on OpenAlexaff
Julia Adelöf, Jaime M. Ross, Stanley E. Lazic, Madeleine Zetterberg, John Wiseman, Malin Hernebring

Bibliographic record

VenueAging · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicStress Responses and Cortisol
Canadian institutionsPrioris.ai (Canada)
FundersNational Institute on AgingStiftelsen för Strategisk ForskningAstraZeneca
KeywordsOpen fieldPhysiologyPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

=51) and cohorts of mature adult (7 months), middle-aged (15 months), and old mice (22 months of age; n=7-12 per group) were assessed regarding open-field activity, exploration, passive avoidance learning/memory, and depressive-like behavior. We found that both males and females demonstrated decreased exploratory behavior with age, while memory and depressive-like behavior were maintained. Females exhibited enhanced depressive-like behavior compared to males; however, a correlation between fat mass and swimming activity in the test directly accounted for 30-46% of this behavioral sex difference. In addition, we suggest a method to qualitatively estimate natural lifespan from survival analyses in which animals with signs of pain or severe disease are euthanized. This is, to our knowledge, the first behavioral study to consider both sex and aging in hybrid mice. We here define decreased exploratory behavior as a conserved hallmark of aging independent of sex, highlight the effect of buoyancy in water tests, and provide a method to assay lifespan with reduced animal suffering.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgingSame topicStress Responses and CortisolFrench-language works237,207