Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although the etiology of depression remains to be elucidated, our knowledge of the neurobiology and biochemistry of this mental disorder has been updated increasingly. Early research focused on the biogenic amines norepinephrine (NE; noradrenaline) and 5‐hydroxytryptamine (5‐HT; serotonin). The biogenic amine (monoamine) hypothesis of depression states that depression is the result of a functional deficiency of NE and/or 5‐HT at central synapses. However, it soon became obvious that other factors were also important in the neurobiology of depression. Dopamine is thought to be involved in various aspects, which include reward and locomotion. The amino acids gamma‐aminobutyric acid (GABA) and glutamate, their receptors, and various neuroactive steroids that act as allosteric modulators at GABA‐A and/or NMDA glutamate receptors have been proposed to have an important role. Stress and the hypothalamic‐pituitary‐adrenal (HPA) axis play a central role, and it has been proposed that increased secretion of corticotropin releasing factor (CRF) may be critical in producing the symptoms of depression. Various other neurochemicals have also been implicated in depression, and in several cases they have links to the HPA axis. Abnormal levels of Substance P have been reported in depression, which led to development of potential antidepressants that interact with neurokinin receptors. Abnormalities in the immune system, which presumably involve cytokines, have been reported in depression. Cell loss seems to occur in some brain areas (e.g., hippocampus) in depression, and such loss can be produced by stress and prevented by antidepressants (which also increase expression of various neurotrophic and transcription factors). Agonists at melatonin receptors have been proposed in recent years as effective antidepressants. The possible involvement of the various neurochemicals mentioned above in depression will be reviewed, and some other neurochemicals that are being examined will also be mentioned.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".