Circadian responses to non-photic treatments in BTBR mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The BTBR T+ Itpr3tf/J mouse (BTBR) differs from C57BL/6 mice in various circadian parameters, including freerunning period (FRP), circadian responses to light, and prominent circadian responses to scheduled feeding. The circadian system is also sensitive to a host of non-photic cues, which can modify and reset freerunning rhythms as well as modulate responses to other zeitgebers such as light. Here we examine how the BTBR mouse responds to various non-photic treatments. Because activity levels can modulate the FRP, we first examined if the shorter FRP of BTBR mice resulted from their higher activity levels. While overall activity was lower when housed without a running wheel, this did not significantly alter their FRP. When housed in constant light, exposure to a 6 h dark pulse improved the quality of the locomotor rhythms for both BTBR and C57 mice. BTBR mice had significantly smaller phase shifts to midday treatments with either a 3 h sleep deprivation procedure or an injection of the serotonin 1A/7 receptor agonist (±) 8-OH-DPAT than did the comparison C57BL/6J strain. However, BTBR mice did exhibit larger responses to midday refeeding pulses following 18 h food deprivation. Their unique circadian phenotype, particularly their short FRP, makes them a useful model for examining circadian responses in mice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".