Performance of compulsive behavior in rats is not a unitary phenomenon – validation of separate functional components in compulsive checking behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A previous analysis of the quinpirole sensitisation rat model of obsessive-compulsive disorder revealed that the behavioral phenotype of compulsive checking consists of three constitutive components - vigor of checking performance, focus on the task of checking, and satiety following a bout of checking. As confirmation of this analysis, the aim of the present study was to reconstitute, without quinpirole treatment, each of the putative components, with the expectation that these would self-assemble into compulsive checking. To reconstitute vigor and satiety, the employed treatment was a bilateral lesion of the nucleus accumbens core (NAc), as this treatment was shown previously to exaggerate these components. To reconstitute focus, the employed treatment was a low dose of the serotonin-1A receptor agonist 8-hydroxy-2-(di-n-propylamino) tetralin hydrochloride (DPAT) (0.0625 mg/kg), as high doses of this drug induce compulsive behavior and exacerbate focus. Results showed that injection of DPAT to NAc lesion rats did yield compulsive checking. Neither the drug alone nor the NAc lesion by itself produced compulsive checking. The demonstrated synthesis of compulsive checking by the combined treatment of low-dose DPAT and NAc lesion strengthened the previous fractionation of the model obsessive-compulsive disorder phenotype into three constitutive components, and suggested a role for serotonin-1A receptors outside the NAc in enhanced focus on the task of checking.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".