Is the T‐maze a suitable tool for investigating the effects of protein‐energy malnutrition on functional outcome following global ischemia?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The T‐maze is a sensitive behavioral test used to measure functional outcome in rodent models of global ischemia. As our laboratory is investigating the adverse effects of protein‐energy malnutrition (PEM) on global ischemia, this study determined: 1) if a sunflower seed reward used with the T‐maze would interfere with PEM, and 2) whether PEM impairs working memory prior to the induction of global ischemia. Male Mongolian gerbils (11–12 wks) were randomized for 6 wks to either modified AIN‐93M control diet (12% protein; n=12) or PEM (2% protein; n=12). Gerbils were habituated in the T‐maze for 5 days, followed by 10 win‐shift trials/day for 10 days. A mean body weight loss of 20% and 17% lower food intake compared to that of controls suggests that PEM was achieved; this will be confirmed by serum albumin measurements. Gerbils on control diet required a mean (± SEM) of 7.3 ± 0.7 trials in the T‐maze to meet criterion (≥90% correct on 3 consecutive days), compared to 5.4 ± 0.4 trials in the PEM group (p = 0.025; unpaired t‐test). The number of animals reaching criterion was 8/12 in the control group, and 12/12 in the PEM group [χ 2 (n=24, df=1) = 4.800, p=0.028]. These results suggest that the reward does not interfere with the model of PEM, and that T‐maze performance is not impaired, but rather may be enhanced by PEM prior to ischemia. Future studies will unravel the influence of both PEM and nutritional repletion on cognitive deficits produced by global ischemia. Funded by CIHR/RPP and Heart and Stroke Foundation of Saskatchewan.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".