Systemic mifepristone blocks reconsolidation of cue-conditioned fear; Propranolol prevents this effect.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reducing reconsolidation of reactivated traumatic memories may offer a novel pharmacological treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Preclinical research is needed to identify candidate drugs. We evaluated the ability of postreactivation mifepristone (RU38486, a glucocorticoid antagonist), alone and in combination with propranolol (a beta-adrenergic blocker), both given systemically, to reduce cue-conditioned fear in rats. On Day 1, a 30-s tone conditioned stimulus (CS) was paired with an electric shock unconditioned stimulus (US). On Day 2, the CS was presented without the US (reactivation), and the freezing conditioned response (CR) was measured. This was immediately followed by subcutaneous injection of vehicle, mifepristone 30 mg/kg, propranolol 10 mg/kg, or both. On Day 3, the CR was again measured as a test of postreactivation long-term memory (PR-LTM). On Day 10, the CR was again measured to evaluate spontaneous recovery. On Day 11, the US was presented alone (reinstatement). On Day 12, the CR was again measured. A fifth group received mifepristone without the CS presentation (nonreactivation) on Day 2. A sixth group was tested four hours after the Day 2 mifepristone injection to measure postreactivation short-term memory. Postreactivation, but not nonreactivation, mifepristone produced a decrement in the CR that did not undergo spontaneous recovery and underwent only modest reinstatement. Mifepristone did not exert its effect when administered concurrently with propranolol. Postreactivation mifepristone did not impair short-term memory. Systemic mifepristone blocks the reconsolidation of cue-conditioned fear in rats. Concurrent administration of propranolol prevents this effect. Postreactivation mifepristone may be a promising treatment for PTSD, but not necessarily in combination with propranolol.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".