Effects of Memantine and High Dose Vitamin D on Gait in Male APP/PS1 Alzheimer’s Disease Mice Following Vitamin D Deprivation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Altered gait is a frequent feature of Alzheimer's disease (AD), as is vitamin D deficiency. Treatment with memantine and vitamin D can protect cortical axons from exposure to amyloid-β and glutamate toxicity, suggesting this combination may mitigate altered gait in AD. OBJECTIVE: Investigate the effects of vitamin D deprivation and subsequent treatment with memantine and vitamin D enrichment on gait performance in APPswe/PS1dE9 mice. METHODS: Male APPswe/PS1dE9 mice were split into four groups (n = 14 each) at 2.5 months of age. A control group was fed a standard diet throughout while the other three groups started a vitamin D-deficient diet at month 6. One group remained on this deficient diet for the rest of the study. At month 9, the other two groups began treatment with either memantine alone or memantine combined with 10 IU/g of vitamin D. Gait was assessed using CatWalk at months 6, 9, 12, and 15. RESULTS: Vitamin D deprivation led to a 13% increase in hind stride width by month 15 (p < 0.001). Examination of the treatment groups at month 15 revealed that mice treated with memantine alone still showed an increase in hind stride width compared to controls (p < 0.01), while mice treated with memantine and vitamin D did not (p = 0.21). CONCLUSION: Vitamin D deprivation led to impaired postural control in the APPswe/PS1dE9 model. Treatment with memantine and vitamin D, but not memantine alone, prevented this impairment. Future work should explore the potential for treatments incorporating vitamin D supplementation to improve gait in people with AD.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".