The effects of galantamine and buspirone on sleep structure: Implications for understanding sleep abnormalities in major depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: The serotonergic and cholinergic systems are jointly involved in regulating sleep, but this balance is theorized to be disturbed in depressed individuals. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to use biological probes in healthy participants, to model the serotonergic/cholinergic imbalance of depression and its associated abnormalities in sleep structure. METHODS: We tested 20 healthy female participants 18-30 years of age on four non-consecutive nights. Participants were given galantamine (a cholinergic agent), buspirone (a serotonergic agonist), both drugs together, or placebo before sleeping. RESULTS: Buspirone suppressed tonic rapid eye movement (REM): There was a significant increase in REM latency (p < 0.001). Galantamine increased tonic REM sleep, leading to more time spent in REM (p < 0.001) and shorter REM latency (p < 0.01). Galantamine and buspirone given together were not significantly different from the placebo night by REM sleep measures, but disrupted sleep more than either drug alone. CONCLUSIONS: These findings are partially consistent with the cholinergic literature about sleep in depression, notably short REM latency, higher percentage of total sleep time spent in REM and increased sleep fragmentation. The prolonged REM latency and reduced percentage of REM with buspirone resembled the effect of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants on REM sleep.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".