Developmental Binge Exposure to Ethanol and Artificial Rearing Do Not Affect the Social Transfer of Diet Preference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A previous study reported no effect of binge exposure to ethanol during the brain growth spurt on the social acquisition of enhanced diet preference in male rats. The objective of this study was to replicate this finding by using the artificial rearing technique and to investigate whether delay‐dependent mnemonic deficits previously observed in the water maze would extend to social memory of diet preference. We also addressed whether this naturalistic behavior was dependent on the presentation of diet odor in the context of a rat‐produced component in ethanol‐exposed rats, as it is in normal controls. Methods: Male rat pups were reared artificially from postnatal days 5 to 18, during which (postnatal days 6–9) they were fed either 6.5 g/kg/day of ethanol in a binge model or an isocaloric maltose‐dextrin solution (gastrostomy controls). A third suckled control group was reared normally. These test rats were allowed to interact with conspecifics that had previously consumed a distinctive diet, X. Subsequently, the experimental rats were provided a choice between two novel diets, one of which was X, after delays of 0 hr (experiment 1), 24 hr, and 4 weeks (experiment 2). In experiment 3, the rats were again given the two‐choice preference test, but after exposure to the diet odor alone. Results: All groups demonstrated a significant preference for the socially cued diet in experiments 1 and 2, and the strength of this inclination remained consistent across the 0‐hr, 24‐hr, and 4‐week retention intervals. Moreover, all groups demonstrated sensitivity to the social context of this task, as shown by a lesser preference for the diet exposed alone in experiment 3. Conclusions: Intact performance on the ethologically meaningful diet‐preference test supports specificity in the cognitive/behavioral effects of developmental exposure to ethanol. Interestingly, early isolation, as experienced in the artificial‐rearing procedure, also did not impair performance on this social task.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".