Effect of social instability stress in adolescence or adulthood on sensitivity to sucrose concentration in a social context in male and female Long‐Evans rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there is evidence of sex differences in responding to social stress, and that age when stressed matters, females are understudied and adult-stress comparisons are few. Here, we investigated stress effects on reward sensitivity by examining rats' choice of social versus sucrose reward in a continuous spatial allocation design. We predicted social instability stress (SS) in adolescence would result in greater social discounting (spend less time near a novel peer when provided access to sucrose) relative to nonstressed controls (CTLs) and relative to SS in adulthood. All increased sucrose intake as the concentration increased, with no evidence of social discounting. SS males tested soon after the stress had a decrease in intake, whereas those tested long after had an increase in both time near the peer and in intake. CTL and SS females did not differ in intake, although their dose-response curves differed when tested soon after the SS. We also tested whether SS changed the stimulus value of the rat as a social peer; when tested in triads, CTL rats spent similar time in interaction with SS versus CTL rats. In sum, effects of SS on reward sensitivity were greater for males irrespective of administered in adolescence versus adulthood.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".