No difference in cerebral perfusion between the wild-type and the 5XFAD mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Neuroimaging with [2,2-dimethyl-3-[(2R,3E)-3-oxidoiminobutan-2-yl]azanidylpropyl]-[(2R,3E)-3-hydroxyiminobutan-2-yl]azanide;oxo(99Tc)technetium-99(3+) ([99mTc]HMPAO) single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) is used in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) to evaluate regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF). Hypoperfusion in select temporoparietal regions has been observed in human AD. However, it is unknown whether AD hypoperfusion signatures are also present in the 5XFAD mouse model. The current study was undertaken to compare baseline brain perfusion between 5XFAD and wild-type (WT) mice using [99mTc]HMPAO SPECT and determine whether hypoperfusion is recapitulated in 5XFAD mice. 5XFAD and WT mice underwent a 45 min SPECT scan, 20 min after [99mTc]HMPAO administration. Whole brain and regional standardized uptake values (SUV) and regional relative standardized uptake values (SUVR) with whole brain reference were compared between groups. Brain perfusion was similar between WT and 5XFAD brains. Whole brain [99mTc]HMPAO retention revealed no significant difference in SUV (5XFAD, 0.372 ± 0.762; WT, 0.640 ± 0.955; p = 0.536). Similarly, regional analysis revealed no significant differences in [99mTc]HMPAO metrics between groups (SUV: 0.357 ≤ p ≤ 0.640; SUVR: 0.595 ≤ p ≤ 0.936). These results suggest apparent discrepancies in rCBF between human AD and the 5XFAD model. Establishing baseline perfusion patterns in 5XFAD mice is essential to inform pre-clinical diagnostic and therapeutic drug discovery programs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".