MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Heightened locomotor‐activating effects of amphetamine administered into the nucleus accumbens in adolescent rats

2011· article· en· W2058772741 on OpenAlexafffund
Iva Z. Mathews, Stefan M. Brudzyński, Cheryl M. McCormick

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Developmental Neuroscience · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Innovation Trust
KeywordsNucleus accumbensAmphetamineLocomotor activityPharmacologyDextroamphetamineDrugPsychologyMedicineNeuroscienceDopamine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a shift in sensitivity to systemically administered psychostimulants in adolescence, as evidenced by less amphetamine-induced locomotor activity in adolescent compared to adult rodents. Locomotor activating effects of amphetamine are dependent on drug actions in the core of the nucleus accumbens (NAc), but the contribution of this region to age differences in amphetamine sensitivity has not been studied directly. In the present study, we investigated the development of the NAc using targeted injections of amphetamine (0, 3, or 6 μg/side) directly into the NAc core in early (postnatal day 30; P30) or late (P45) adolescence, or in adulthood (P75). Locomotor activity was recorded during two 1h sessions, 48 h apart. Amphetamine increased locomotor activity at all ages. P45 rats were more active than adults only at the 3 μg/side dose, but this difference was not significant when baseline activity was taken into account. In contrast, P30 rats were more active than adults at the 6 μg/side dose, indicating that the magnitude of the locomotor response is highest in early adolescence. Results of the present study are the first to directly show a developmental difference in the sensitivity of the NAc to amphetamine under conditions in which the influence of pharmacokinetic factors and regulatory brain regions is minimized.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Developmental NeuroscienceSame topicNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorFrench-language works237,207