MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221118748 · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-09270-1

Search strategy analysis of Tg4-42 Alzheimer Mice in the Morris Water Maze reveals early spatial navigation deficits

2022· article· en· W4221118748 on OpenAlexaff
Nadine Curdt, F. Schmitt, Caroline Bouter, Trendelina Iseni, Hanna C. Weile, Berfin Altunok, Nicola Beindorff, Thomas A. Bayer, Matthew B. Cooke, Yvonne Bouter

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersGeorg-August-Universität GöttingenDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsMorris water navigation taskNeuroscienceHippocampusPsychologySpatial memoryWater mazeMedicineCognitionWorking memory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spatial disorientation is one of the earliest symptoms in Alzheimer's disease and allocentric deficits can already be detected in the asymptomatic preclinical stages of the disease. The Morris Water Maze (MWM) is used to study spatial learning in rodent models. Here we investigated the spatial memory of female 3, 7 and 12 month-old Alzheimer Tg4-42 mice in comparison to wild-type control animals. Conventional behavior analysis of escape latencies and quadrant preference revealed spatial memory and reference memory deficits in female 7 and 12 month-old Tg4-42 mice. In contrast, conventional analysis of the MWM indicated an intact spatial memory in 3 month-old Tg4-42 mice. However, a detailed analysis of the swimming strategies demonstrated allocentric-specific memory deficits in 3 month-old Tg4-42 mice before the onset of severe memory deficits. Furthermore, we could show that the spatial reference memory deficits in aged Tg4-42 animals are caused by the lack of allocentric and spatial strategies. Analyzing search strategies in the MWM allows to differentiate between hippocampus-dependent allocentric and hippocampus-independent egocentric search strategies. The spatial navigation impairments in young Tg4-42 mice are well in line with the hypometabolism and synaptic deficits in the hippocampus. Therefore, analyzing search strategies in the Tg4-42 model can be a powerful tool for preclinical drug testing and identifying early therapeutic successes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.785

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations58
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207