Effects of hypophysectomy on compulsive checking and cortical dendrites in an animal model of obsessive-compulsive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hormones may modulate the symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), but the evidence is equivocal and not consistent across studies, with findings of hormone-associated increases and decreases of symptoms. To assess whether a strong endocrine influence on OCD exists, the effects of hypophysectomy were examined in an animal model of OCD. The model involves repeated injections of the dopamine D2/D3 receptor agonist, quinpirole, to induce locomotor sensitization and compulsive checking behavior. Intact and hypophysectomized rats were administered quinpirole (0.5 mg/kg x 6, twice weekly) or saline and compulsive checking in a large open field was measured according to a standard protocol. Results showed that in hypophysectomized animals, the development of locomotor sensitization was attenuated but the expression of quinpirole-induced compulsive checking was full-blown. Analysis of Golgi-stained neurons showed changes in spine density in Cg3 and Par1 and increased branching of apical dendrites in Cg3. It is suggested that compulsive checking could be coupled with drug-induced increases in Cg3 dendritic branching and that changes in spine density may reflect a compensatory adjustment in dopamine-innervated regions. On the basis of the animal model findings, it is concluded that the presence of OCD checking compulsions is not dependent on pituitary axis hormones.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".