Sex and age differences in locomotor and anxiety‐like behaviors in rats: From adolescence to adulthood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Risk-taking behaviors are a primary contributor to elevated adolescent injury and mortality. Locomotor and anxiety-like behaviors in rodents have been used to examine risk-taking. Here, we examined risk-taking behavior (i.e., changes in locomotor and anxiety-like behaviors) from early to late adolescence and adulthood in male and female rats in the open-field (OF) apparatus and the light-dark (LD) test. We also examined whether these behaviors are affected by an early adolescent immune stressor, lipopolysaccharide (LPS). Long-Evans male and female rats were injected with LPS (200 μg/kg) or vehicle control in early adolescence (postnatal day [PND] 30 and 32). Anxiety-like behavior and locomotor activity were measured in early (PND 38-40), late adolescence (PND 50), and adulthood (PND 88 and 98) in the OF and in early adolescence (PND 42) and adulthood (PND 90) in the LD test. Early and late adolescent rats displayed significantly greater locomotor and anxiety-like behaviors than adult rats in the OF and LD test. Sex differences were also found, with adolescent and adult females displaying greater locomotor and anxiety-like behaviors than male rats in the OF and LD tests. LPS administered two times in early adolescence did not have a significant impact on either locomotor or anxiety-like behaviors suggesting minimal impact of the immune stressor.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".