MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Increasing D2 affinity results in the loss of clozapineʼs atypical antipsychotic action

2002· article· en· W2009841037 on OpenAlexaff
Shitij Kapur, Robert A. McClelland, Susan C. VanderSpek, Marie-Louise G. Wadenberg, Glen B. Baker, José N. Nóbrega, Robert B. Zipursky, Philip Seeman

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClozapineDopamine receptor D2Atypical antipsychoticAntipsychoticTypical antipsychoticHaloperidolCatalepsyReceptorPharmacologyDopamineNeurotransmitter receptorPsychologyPsychosisInternal medicineEndocrinologyNeuroscienceSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)MedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Typical antipsychotics (haloperidol) give rise to severe motor side-effects while atypical antipsychotics like clozapine do not. Action at several neurotransmitter receptors have been implicated. To identify the critical mechanisms involved we synthesized an 8-C1 isomer of clozapine which showed an equivalent affinity to clozapine on multiple receptors (5-HT1A, 5-HT2, D1, D4, M1) but differed in having a 10-fold higher affinity at the dopamine D2/3 receptor. When tested in a series of animal models indicative of the typical/atypical distinction (catalepsy, striatal gene-induction, prolactin elevation) isoclozapine lost atypical properties and behaved like a typical antipsychotic. Simultaneous in vivo receptor occupancy studies confirmed that alterations in D2 receptor occupancy were most closely related to loss of atypicality by clozapine's isomer isoclozapine. The implications for the design of future antipsychotics is discussed.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations32
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207