MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401691775 · doi:10.1523/eneuro.0179-24.2024

Not a Deficit, Just Different: Prepulse Inhibition Disruptions in Autism Depend on Startle Stimulus Intensities

2024· article· en· W4401691775 on OpenAlexafffund
Ella Elizabeth Doornaert, Alaa El-Cheikh Mohamad, Gurwinder Johal, Brian L. Allman, Dorit Möhrle, Susanne Schmid

Bibliographic record

VenueeNeuro · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftUniversities Space Research Association
KeywordsPrepulse inhibitionStimulus (psychology)PsychologyAutismStartle responseAudiologyNeuroscienceCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicinePsychiatrySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sensory processing disruptions are a core symptom of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and other neurological disorders. The acoustic startle response and prepulse inhibition (PPI) are common metrics used to assess disruptions in sensory processing and sensorimotor gating in clinical studies and animal models. However, often there are inconsistent findings on ASD-related PPI deficits across different studies. Here, we used a novel method for assessing changes in startle and PPI in rodents, using the Cntnap2 knock-out (KO) rat model for neurodevelopmental disorder/ASD that has consistently shown PPI disruptions in past studies. We discovered that not only sex and prepulse intensity but also the intensity of the startle stimulus profoundly impacts whether PPI deficits are evident in the Cntnap2 KO rat or not. We show that rats do not universally exhibit a PPI deficit; instead, impaired PPI is contingent on specific testing conditions. Notably, at lower startle stimulus intensities, Cntnap2 KO rats not only demonstrated intact PPI but also exhibited evidence of enhanced PPI compared with their wild-type counterparts. This finding emphasizes the importance of considering specific testing conditions when evaluating startle and PPI in the context of ASD and other neuropsychiatric conditions and might explain some of the inconsistencies between different 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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeNeuroSame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207