Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Risk factors

Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment

Motor problems occur early in some patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and as the disease progresses many patients develop motor dysfunction. Motor dysfunction has been reported in some mouse models of AD, including the 5xFAD mouse, thus this model may be particularly useful for studying motor dysfunction in AD. In order to determine the extent of motor dysfunction in these mice, we tested 11-13 month old female 5xFAD and wildtype (WT) control mice in a battery of motor behaviour tasks. The 5xFAD mice showed hind limb clasping, weighed less and had slower righting reflexes than WT mice. In the open field, the 5xFAD mice travelled a shorter distance than the WT mice, spent less time moving and had a slower movement speed. The 5xFAD mice fell faster than the WT mice from the balance beam, wire suspension, grid suspension and rotarod tasks, indicating dysfunctions in balance, grip strength, motor co-ordination and motor learning. The 5xFAD mice had a short, shuffling gait with a shorter stride length than WT mice and had a slower swim speed. The 5xFAD mice also failed to show an acoustic startle response, likely due to motor dysfunction and previously reported hearing impairment. The 5xFAD mice did not show deficits in the ability of peripheral motor nerves to drive muscle output, suggesting that motor impairments are not due to dysfunction in peripheral motor nerves. These results indicate that the aged 5xFAD mice are deficient in numerous motor behaviours, and suggest that these mice may prove to be a good model for studying the mechanisms of motor dysfunction in AD, and motor behaviour might prove useful for assessing the efficacy of AD therapeutics. Motor dysfunction in 5xFAD mice must also be considered in behavioural tests of sensory and cognitive function so that performance is not confounded by impaired locomotor or swimming behaviour.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 38/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 22 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 38 of 100. Total 38 of 100.22 of the 58 points we could judge = 38 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Behavioural brain research)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 2 / 5 2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 0 / 3 Laboratory or animal study (title names “5xfad”) — scores zero
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 28890389)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 22 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 38 out of 100.
Total 38 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

O'Leary, T. P., Robertson, A., Chipman, P. H., Rafuse, V. F., & Brown, R. E. (2018). Motor function deficits in the 12 month-old female 5xFAD mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. Behavioural brain research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2017.09.009

Vancouver

O'Leary TP, Robertson A, Chipman PH, Rafuse VF, Brown RE. Motor function deficits in the 12 month-old female 5xFAD mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. Behavioural brain research. 2018. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2017.09.009. PMID: 28890389.

BibTeX

@article{oleary2018-28890389,
  author  = {O'Leary, T. P. and Robertson, A. and Chipman, P. H. and Rafuse, V. F. and Brown, R. E.},
  title   = {{Motor function deficits in the 12 month-old female 5xFAD mouse model of Alzheimer's disease}},
  journal = {Behavioural brain research},
  year    = {2018},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.bbr.2017.09.009},
  pmid    = {28890389},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2017.09.009}
}

Related studies in Risk factors

Also tagged “exercise-training”

125 studies in the library carry the topic tag “exercise-training”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 125 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Risk factors

See all studies in Risk factors →