MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Relationship Between Aerobic Exercise Capacity And Behavior Disorders In Mice

2024· article· en· W4402663041 on OpenAlexaff
Megan Mc Manus, Amanda Laplante, Konrad Schœttner, Shimon Amir, Andreas Bergdahl

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicRegulation of Appetite and Obesity
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerobic capacityAerobic exercisePsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiac output is a critical determinant of aerobic exercise capacity, influencing both physical performance and, intriguingly, brain functions. Despite the known impact of heart function on mood regulation, the connection between inherent cardiovascular endurance and susceptibility to behavioral disorders remains elusive. PURPOSE: To examine the association between basal aerobic exercise capacity and the manifestation of depressive-like behavior in mice. Specifically, phenotypes defined by heightened anhedonia, helplessness, and low motivation. METHODS: In this quantitative experiment, 20 C57BL/6 mice were classified into low and high aerobic performance groups containing 5 females and 5 males each. Animal selection was based on running ability of 36 mice subjected to a maximum aerobic capacity test without prior training. The low and high performing groups ran less than 180 min and over 250 min, respectively. The mice underwent a sucrose preference test (SPT), measuring anhedonia, and a tail suspension test (TST), assessing motivation and helplessness, 48 h post-treadmill test. Behavioral analysis was complemented with cardiac morphological measures using ultrasound and brain fluorescent imaging conducted the next day. Two-tailed independent T-tests compared data between groups. RESULTS: Data showed no significant difference in anhedonia between the high and low aerobic performance groups (78.87 ± 9.55 vs. 79.15 ± 6.18%, p > 0.05). The mean TST immobility ratio did not differ significantly between poor and good runners (37.77 ± 12.67 vs. 43.13 ± 15.16%, p > 0.05), revealing no variation in expressed motivation between groups. The mean ejection fraction (%) for low and high-performance running groups suggested no discrepancy in cardiac output for different aerobic fitness levels (34.08 ± 10.96 vs. 29.87 ± 10.69%, p > 0.05). Brain perfusion measured by mean arrival time of fluorescent dye to the brain was not significantly different between low and high aerobic capacity groups (1.42 ± 0.15 vs. 1.57 ± 0.23 sec, p > 0.05). No difference was seen between males and females (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Aerobic exercise capacity does not relate to different behavioral phenotypes in mice. Future testing includes looking at the long-term effects of aerobic training, rather than basal aerobic endurance, on behavior.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicRegulation of Appetite and Obesity→French-language works237,207→