Effects of supplemental creatine and guanidinoacetic acid on spatial memory and the brain of weaned Yucatan miniature pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emergence of creatine as a potential cognitive enhancement supplement for humans prompted an investigation as to whether supplemental creatine could enhance spatial memory in young swine. We assessed memory performance and brain concentrations of creatine and its precursor guanidinoacetic acid (GAA) in 14-16-week-old male Yucatan miniature pigs supplemented for 2 weeks with either 200 mg/kg∙d creatine (+Cr; n = 7) or equimolar GAA (157 mg/kg∙d) (+GAA; n = 8) compared to controls (n = 14). Spatial memory tests had pigs explore distinct sets of objects for 5 min. Objects were spatially controlled, and we assessed exploration times of previously viewed objects relative to novel objects in familiar or novel locations. There was no effect of either supplementation on memory performance, but pigs successfully identified novel objects after 10 (p < 0.01) and 20 min (p < 0.01) retention intervals. Moreover, pigs recognized spatial transfers after 65 min (p < 0.05). Regression analyses identified associations between the ability to identify novel objects in memory tests and concentrations of creatine and GAA in cerebellum, and GAA in prefrontal cortex (p < 0.05). The concentration of creatine in brain regions was not influenced by creatine supplementation, but GAA supplementation increased GAA concentration in cerebellum (p < 0.05), and the prefrontal cortex of +GAA pigs had more creatine/g and less GAA/g compared to +Cr pigs (p < 0.05). Creatine kinase activity and maximal reaction velocity were also higher with GAA supplementation in prefrontal cortex (p < 0.05). In conclusion, there appears to be a relationship between memory performance and guanidino compounds in the cerebellum and prefrontal cortex, but the effects were unrelated to dietary supplementation. The cerebellum is identified as a target site for GAA accretion.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".