Endogenous Opioids and Addiction to Alcohol and other Drugs of Abuse
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is significant experimental evidence implicating the endogenous opioid system (opioid peptides and opioid receptors) with the processes of reward and reinforcement. Indeed, many behaviors associated with reward and reinforcement, for example feeding behavior, are controlled by distinct components of the endogenous opioid system located in relevant brain regions. It has also been shown that regardless of their initial site of action many drugs of abuse, such as morphine, nicotine, cocaine, alcohol and amphetamines, induce an increase in the extracellular concentration of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens. This increased secretion of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens seems to be a common effect of many drugs of abuse, and it was proposed that may mediate their rewarding and reinforcing properties. Furthermore, activation of micro opioid receptors in the ventral tegmental area, or of micro and delta opioid receptors in the nucleus accumbens enhances the extracellular concentration of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens. Thus, stimulation of the activity of distinct components of the endogenous opioid system either by opioid or by other drugs of abuse, may mediate some of their reinforcing effects. In this review article, a brief description of the endogenous opioid system and its implication in the processes of reward and reinforcement of opioid and other drugs of abuse will be presented. Furthermore, the use of opioid antagonists in the treatment of drug addiction will be discussed. Special emphasis will be given to ethanol addiction, the drug mainly studied in my laboratory.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it