Antiparkinson therapeutic potencies correlate with their affinities at dopamine D2<sup>High</sup> receptors
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
To determine whether antiparkinson dopamine agonists preferentially act on the high-affinity or the low-affinity states of dopamine D1 and D2 receptors, the agonist potencies were obtained by competition against [(3)H]SCH23390 for D1(High) and D1(Low), and against [(3)H]domperidone for D2(High) and D2(Low). N-propylnorapomorphine and cabergoline were the most potent at D2(High), with dissociation constants of 0.18 and 0.36 nM, respectively. Other agonists had D2(High)K(i) values of 0.52 nM for quinagolide, 0.6 nM for (+)PHNO, 0.9 for bromocriptine, 1.8 nM for apomorphine, 2.4 nM for pergolide, 3 nM for quinpirole, and 6.2 nM for lergotrile. There was a clear correlation between the K(i) values at D2(High) and their therapeutic concentrations in the plasma water, as derived from the known concentrations after correction for the fraction bound to the human plasma proteins. The data suggest that D2(High) is the primary and common target for the antiparkinson action of dopamine agonists. Bromocriptine, cabergoline, lergotrile, pergolide, and pramipexole had no affinity for D1(High), consistent with the clinical observations that the D2-selective bromocriptine and pramipexole elicit low levels of dyskinesia.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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