Examining litter specific variability in mice and its impact on neurodevelopmental studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our current understanding of litter variability in neurodevelopmental studies using mice may limit translation of neuroscientific findings. Higher variance of measures across litters than within, often termed intra-litter likeness, may be attributable to both pre- and postnatal environment. This study aimed to assess the litter-effect within behavioral assessments (2 timepoints) and anatomy using T1-weighted magnetic resonance images across 72 brain region volumes (4 timepoints) (36 C57bl/6J inbred mice; 7 litters: 19F/17M). Between-litter comparisons of brain and behavioral measures and their associations were evaluated using univariate and multivariate techniques. A power analysis using simulation methods was then performed on modeled neurodevelopment and to evaluate trade-offs between number-of-litters, number-of-mice-per-litter, and sample size. Our results show litter-specific developmental effects, from the adolescent period to adulthood for brain structure volumes and behaviors, and for their associations in adulthood. Our power simulation analysis suggests increasing the number-of-litters in experimental designs to achieve the smallest total sample size necessary for detecting different rates of change in specific brain regions. Our results demonstrate how litter-specific effects may influence development and that increasing the litters to the total sample size ratio should be strongly considered when designing neurodevelopmental studies.
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 | 0.186 | 0.291 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".