MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sleep deprivation stimulates serotonin release in the suprachiasmatic nucleus

2000· article· en· W2002382519 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory Grossman, Ralph E. Mistlberger, Michael C. Antle, J. Christopher Ehlen, J. David Glass

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCircadian rhythm and melatonin
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsSerotonergicSerotoninCircadian rhythmSuprachiasmatic nucleusSleep deprivationEndocrinologyInternal medicineRapid eye movement sleepLight effects on circadian rhythmNeuroscience of sleepSleep (system call)NeuroscienceDark therapyPsychologySlow-wave sleepBiologyMedicineEye movementReceptorElectroencephalography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent literature suggests that sleep deprivation has a general stimulatory effect on the central serotonergic system. Herein we report that in hamsters, sleep deprivation induced by gentle handling for 3 h under dim red light at midday stimulates serotonin release in the suprachiasmatic nuclei by as much as 171%. Basal levels of 5-HT release are re-established within 1 h after cessation of treatment. Sleep deprivation also evokes phase advances of the circadian activity rhythm averaging 2 h. When sleep deprivation is undertaken in bright light, serotonin release is stimulated, but phase-shifting is greatly inhibited. It is therefore proposed that if the phase-resetting response to sleep deprivation is mediated by increased serotonin release, light inhibits the phase-resetting effect by blocking the postsynaptic or other downstream actions of serotonin.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations95
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicCircadian rhythm and melatoninFrench-language works237,207