MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406050535 · doi:10.1002/alz.092415

A systematic review with meta‐analysis of the GABAergic system in transgenic rodent models of amyloidosis and tauopathy

2024· review· en· W4406050535 on OpenAlexaffabout
André Nunes Mensch, Giovanna Carello‐Collar, Vanessa G. Ramos, Bruna Bellaver, Pâmela C.L. Ferreira, Pedro Rosa‐Neto, Tharick A. Pascoal, Marco Antônio De Bastiani, Eduardo R. Zimmer

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscienceHippocampusPSEN1GABAergicGlutamate decarboxylaseDentate gyrusTauopathyBiologyAmyloid precursor proteinPsychologyInternal medicineMedicineAlzheimer's diseaseNeurodegenerationDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is characterized by the accumulation of amyloid‐β (Aβ) plaques and tau tangles in the brain, and neurotransmission dysfunctions. Indeed, our group recently demonstrated that the γ‐aminobutyric acid (GABA)ergic system is vulnerable to AD pathology in humans. However, whether this vulnerability is also present in AD rodent models is still unknown. Thus, we aimed to examine the GABAergic system in rodent models of amyloidosis and tauopathy. Method We systematically reviewed the literature following the PRISMA 2020 Statement. We searched PubMed and Web of Science from database inception to March 2023 for studies reporting GABA, glutamate decarboxylase (GAD) 65/67, GABA transporters (GAT), and GABAA and GABAB receptors in the brain of 3xTg‐AD, 5xFAD, APP/PSEN1, McGill‐R‐Thy1‐APP, Tg2576, TauPS2APP, TgCRND8, APP SweDI, and hAPP‐J20 AD rodent models. Then, we performed a random‐effects meta‐analysis of standardized mean differences (SMD) using the metafor and metaviz packages in R (FDR‐adjusted p‐value < 0.05). Result The search identified 3,631 articles and 27 met the inclusion criteria (Table 1 and Figure 1A). The systematic review showed decreased levels of GAD65/67 in the hippocampus, dentate gyrus, and hilus of TauPS2APP, hippocampus of TgCRND8, hippocampus and cortex of APP SweDI, and suprachiasmatic nucleus of Tg2576 mouse models. However, no differences in the cortex and cerebellum of APP/PSEN1 and hippocampus of hAPP‐J20 mice were found (Figure 1B). APP/PSEN1 had decreased vGAT in the hippocampus and increased in cortex (Figure 1B). GABAA receptors (Figure 1B) were decreased in APP/PSEN1 mice, while GABAB receptors (Figure 1B) remained unchanged. Due to insufficient number of studies, we meta‐analyzed only GABA. There were no differences in GABA levels in the cortex of APP/PSEN1 and Tg2576 mouse models (Figures 2A and 2B, p = 0.226 and 0.968, respectively), and in the hippocampal GABA levels in 5xFAD mice (Figure 2C, p = 0.924). Conclusion Here, we show decreased levels of GABAergic synthesis enzymes and GABAA receptors, and alterations in GABA transporters in AD rodent models. By contrast, there were no changes in GABA levels and GABAB receptors. Our results suggest that the AD rodent models recapitulate the GABAergic system vulnerability seen in human AD.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.030
Bibliometrics0.0100.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments→French-language works237,207→