Table 9.

Summary of 5-HT trends in AD models.

Difference between WT and Tg	Age (months)	Model	Sex	5-HT changes observed	Effect sizes/significance (η2, d, p)	Authors
✓	1	C57BL/6 mice (injected with Aβ oligomer solution)	M	Tg M cortical cells treated with Fluoxetine and Vortioxetine exhibited decreased cell death	p < 0.05	Caruso et al. (2021)
✘	2–2.5	C57BL/6 mice (injected with Aβ1-42)	M	Treatment with Vortioxetine or Fluoxetine rescued memory impairment in Tg M	η2 = 0.29	Torrisi et al. (2019)
✓	8	APP/PS1	M	Tg M treated with Fluoxetine had reduced mean escape latencies in the MWT compared to Tg conrols.	p < 0.01	Zhou et al. (2019)
✓				Tg M treated with Fluoxetine has reduced Aβ plaque burden compared to Tg controls.	p < 0.01
✘	9	APP/PS1	M, F	No significant difference between Tg controls and Tg-Fluoxetine mice in MWT acquisition.	η2 = 0.60	Wang et al. (2014)
✘				Fluoxetine decreased escape latency of WT and Tg mice	η2 = 0.06
✓	16–17	APP/PS1	M	Tg M treated with Fluoxetine had decreased escape latencies compared to Tg M controls.	p < 0.05	Ma et al. (2017)
✓				Tg M treated with Fluoxetine has more neurons in the DG compared to Tg M controls.	p < 0.05
✘	18	APP/PS1	NR	Tg mice treated with Paroxetine did not show reduced Aβ or microgliosis compared to Tg mice controls.	p > 0.05	Sivasaravanaparan et al. (2022)

η² calculated according to Lakens, 2013. NR signifies non-reported statistical results. * Signifies that the effect size is not trivial, but the data needed to determine the direction of the trend were not reported. The impact of effect sizes is subjective. However, the scientific community generally defines Cohen’s d effect sizes as: ‘small’ d = 0.2, ‘medium’ d = 0.5, and ‘large’ d = 0.8 (Paterson et al., 2016). While eta squared (η²) effect sizes are ‘small’ η² = 0.01, ‘medium’ η² = 0.06, and ‘large’ η² = 0.14 (Kotrlik and Williams, 2003). The purpose of including effect sizes and significance measures in the above tables is to elucidate any consistent trends in behavioral testing in AD animal models.