MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282966324 · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2022.113963

The anxiogenic effects of adolescent psychological stress in male and female mice

2022· article· en· W4282966324 on OpenAlexaff
Paula Muñoz, Tamara B. Franklin

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioural Brain Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicStress Responses and Cortisol
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxiogenicAnxietyPsychologySexual maturityDevelopmental psychologyPhysiologyDepression (economics)EndocrinologyInternal medicineClinical psychologyAnxiolyticMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adolescence is a period of transition during which there is extensive development of the brain and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. However, the term adolescence is broad and covers a number of important developmental periods ranging from pre-pubescence to sexual maturity. Using a predator stress model, we investigated the effects of chronic psychological stress on anxiety-like, depression-like, and social behaviours in male and female mice during early adolescence, when mice are pre-pubertal, and late adolescence, when mice are sexually mature. All stressed mice showed hyperactivity and increased anxiety-like behaviours. The anxiogenic effects were generally more pronounced in mice exposed to late, rather than early adolescent stress, but were clearly evident when stress was experienced at either timepoint. Risk assessment behaviours were also affected by the stress treatments, but the direction of these changes were sometimes sex- and age-specific. Surprisingly, mice stressed during adolescence showed no depressive-like behaviours as adults. This study provides evidence that adolescent psychological stress has pronounced long-term anxiogenic effects but that the precise behavioural phenotype differs based on sex and the sub-stage of adolescence during which the individual is exposed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioural Brain ResearchSame topicStress Responses and CortisolFrench-language works237,207