MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cholecystokinin Modulation of Mesolimbic Dopamine Function: Regulation of Motivated Behaviour

2002· review· en· W2057256275 on OpenAlexaff
Susan Rotzinger, David E. Bush, Franco J. Vaccarino

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacology & Toxicology · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuropeptides and Animal Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleus accumbensDopaminePsychologyNeuroscienceCholecystokininNeuropeptideMesolimbic pathwayReward systemAddictionReceptorMedicineInternal medicineVentral tegmental areaDopaminergic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reviews evidence and presents a hypothesis regarding the effects of stress on motivated behaviour, and in particular the observation that stress can have both motivationally inhibitory and motivationally facilitatory effects. This issue will be addressed with regard to psychostimulant self-administration, and the role that the neurobiological mechanisms underlying motivated behaviour are thought to be involved in the evolution of addictions. Evidence from animal studies shows that stress and stress-related hormones such as corticosterone can facilitate mesolimbic dopamine function and the behavioural effects of psychostimulants, particularly at lower levels of stress. Conversely, higher levels of stress can inhibit motivated behaviour, and evidence is presented that this may occur in part through the effects of the neuropeptide cholecystokinin (CCK), acting through CCK-B receptors in the nucleus accumbens. Individual differences in endogenous CCK and dopamine systems are hypothesized to be important modulators of individual differences in motivated behaviour.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.254 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations33
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacology & ToxicologySame topicNeuropeptides and Animal PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207