MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162122341 · doi:10.1002/cpz1.135

SHIRPA as a Neurological Screening Battery in Mice

2021· article· en· W3162122341 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Lalonde, Mohammed Filali, C. Strazielle

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Protocols · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMitochondrial Function and Pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForelimbReflexCerebellar DegenerationNeuroscienceCerebellumMotor coordinationPsychologyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The SmithKline, Harwell, Imperial College, Royal Hospital, Phenotype Assessment (SHIRPA) is a rapid battery of tests comprising 42 measurements of motor activity, coordination, postural control, muscle tone, autonomic functions, and emotional reactivity, as well as reflexes dependent on visual, auditory, and tactile modalities. Individual scores in SHIRPA are sensitive in detecting phenotypes of several experimental models of neural disease, especially cerebellar degeneration and Alzheimer disease, and combined subscores have been useful in estimating the impact of vascular anomalies and exposure to infectious agents. In cerebellar degeneration, weak forelimb grip, impaired wire maneuver and air righting, and negative geotaxis appear as prevalent features. Most of the measures in the battery are susceptible to change after gene modifications or physiological alterations. SHIRPA can be used both in adult mice and mice in the preweaning period to screen for sensorimotor function and emotional reactivity, not selective attention or memory. © 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC Basic Protocol: Step-by-step procedure for SHIRPA.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.026

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations26
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent ProtocolsSame topicMitochondrial Function and PathologyFrench-language works237,207