MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Does dopamine dysfunction drive depression?

2007· review· en· W2073017306 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Psychiatrica Scandinavica · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychedelics and Drug Studies
Canadian institutionsAstraZeneca (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMelancholiaMelancholic depressionPsychologyDepression (economics)CognitionPsychiatryClinical psychologyNeuroscienceCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the evidence that dopamine (DA) dysfunction contributes to melancholic depression. METHOD: Database (EMBASE, PsychLit and MEDLINE) searches using relevant key words were conducted and citations were scrutinized. RESULTS: In this paper, we assume that the definition of melancholia is contingent upon the presence of psychomotor disturbance (PMD). In melancholic depression PMD comprises both a cognitive and motor component and DA is found to be important in both. DA neurotransmission modulates cognition in particular in attention, adaptation and motivational processes and has a pivotal role in motor function. CONCLUSION: DA is a credible aetiological candidate for the PMD in melancholic depression. However, melancholia needs first to be characterized both clinically and in terms of its pathophysiology. In this regard, illnesses such as bipolar depression and Parkinson's disease warrant consideration as they provide suitable models of both the cognitive and motor aspects of PMD, and hold the necessary markers to better define melancholia.

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 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)0.001
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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.346 · 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