Is schizophrenia a dopamine supersensitivity psychotic reaction?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolf Meyer (1866-1950) did not see schizophrenia as a discrete disorder with a specific etiology but, rather, as a reaction to a wide variety of biopsychosocial factors. He may have been right. Today, we have evidence that gene mutations, brain injury, drug use (cocaine, amphetamine, marijuana, phencyclidine, and steroids), prenatal infection and malnutrition, social isolation and marginalization, can all result in the signs and symptoms of schizophrenia. This clinical picture is generally associated with supersensitivity to dopamine, and activates dopamine neurotransmission that is usually alleviated or blocked by drugs that block dopamine D2 receptors. While the dopamine neural pathway may be a final common route to many of the clinical symptoms, the components of this pathway, such as dopamine release and number of D2 receptors, are approximately normal in schizophrenia patients who are in remission. Postmortem findings, however, reveal more dimers of D1D2 and D2D2 receptors in both human schizophrenia brains and in animal models of schizophrenia. Another finding in animal models is an elevation of high-affinity state D2High receptors, but no radioactive ligand is yet available to selectively label D2High receptors in humans. It is suggested that synaptic dopamine supersensitivity in schizophrenia is an attempt at compensation for the original damage by heightening dopamine neurotransmission pathways (preparing the organism for fight or flight). The dopamine overactivity is experienced subjectively as overstimulation, which accounts for some of the clinical symptoms, with attempts at dampening down the stimulation leading to still other symptoms. Reaction and counter-reaction may explain the symptoms of schizophrenia.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".