MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031811627 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1111746108

Glucocorticoid receptors in the prefrontal cortex regulate stress-evoked dopamine efflux and aspects of executive function

2011· article· en· W2031811627 on OpenAlexafffund
Kelly A. Butts, Joanne Weinberg, Allan H. Young, Anthony G. Phillips

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicStress Responses and Cortisol
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPrefrontal cortexDopamineNeuroscienceDopaminergicGlucocorticoidVentral tegmental areaGlucocorticoid receptorCorticosteronePsychologyChemistryEndocrinologyMedicineCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Enhanced dopamine efflux in the prefrontal cortex is a well-documented response to acute stress. However, the underlying mechanism(s) for this response is unknown. Using in vivo microdialysis, we demonstrate that blocking glucocorticoid receptors locally within the rat prefrontal cortex results in a reduction in stress-evoked dopamine efflux. In contrast, blocking glucocorticoid receptors in the ventral tegmental area did not affect stress-evoked dopamine efflux in the prefrontal cortex. Additionally, local administration of corticosterone into the prefrontal cortex increased prefrontal dopamine efflux. The functional impact of enhanced dopamine efflux evoked by acute stress was demonstrated using a cognitive task dependent on the prefrontal cortex and sensitive to impairment in working memory. Notably, stress-induced impairments in cognition were attenuated by blockade of glucocorticoid receptors in the prefrontal cortex. Taken together, these data demonstrate that glucocorticoids act locally within the prefrontal cortex to modulate mesocortical dopamine efflux leading to the cognitive impairments observed during acute stress.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 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

Citations183
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicStress Responses and CortisolFrench-language works237,207