MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963494364 · doi:10.1159/000119345

Effect of Chronic Pretreatment with the Sigma Ligand JO 1784 on CRF-lnduced Changes in Behaviour, Neurotransmitter and Immunological Function in the Rat

2008· article· en· W1963494364 on OpenAlexaff
Cai Song, Bernadette Earley, B. E. Leonard

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychobiology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPharmacological Receptor Mechanisms and Effects
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternal medicineEndocrinologySerotoninNeurotransmitterOpen fieldCorticosteroneDopaminePhytohaemagglutininHypothalamusChemistryReceptorDopaminergicLymphocyteMedicineHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of the chronic administration of the sigma ligand JO 1784 (igmesine) CRF-induced changes in some behavioural, immune, endocrine and neurotransmitter parameters were studied. In the elevated plus maze, CRF (1.0 microgram i.c.v. daily x 5 days) induced a reduction in the number of entries and time spent on the open arms was significantly attenuated by the sigma ligand JO 1784 (3 mg/kg x 21 days) treatment. In the open field apparatus, the CRF-induced increase in the locomotor activity was also reduced by JO 1784 administration. JO 1784 treatment did not alter the concentration of the biogenic amine transmitters in the hypothalamus, nor reverse the increase in the turnover of serotonin and dopamine caused by CRF. JO 1784 treatment also failed to reverse a CRF-induced increase in the serum corticosterone, but it did reverse the reduction in phytohaemagglutinin and concanavalin A-induced lymphocyte proliferation caused by CRF but not the changes in the lymphocyte and neutrophil numbers caused by the peptide. These results demonstrate that JO 1784 has some antistress properties in CRF-treated rats.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.229
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropsychobiologySame topicPharmacological Receptor Mechanisms and EffectsFrench-language works237,207