Differential Effects of Nicotine and Complex Housing on Subsequent Experience-Dependent Structural Plasticity in the Nucleus Accumbens.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drugs and other forms of experience (e.g., complex housing) share the ability to alter the dendritic fields of cortical and subcortical neurons. Although such modifications are typically considered advantageous, recent research has demonstrated that psychomotor stimulants (cocaine and amphetamine) block subsequent experience-dependent structural plasticity in the nucleus accumbens (NAcc) and parietal neocortex. The authors investigated whether these findings generalize to another commonly used stimulant (nicotine) and further asked whether prior experience blocks subsequent nicotine-related structural plasticity. Rats were given daily injections of nicotine (or saline) for 14 days either before (Experiment 1) or after (Experiment 2) 2.5-3.0 months of complex (or standard) housing. Nicotine blocked housing-related increases in dendritic branching, length, spine density, and total spines in NAcc; however, complex housing did not block the effects of nicotine. The findings indicate that there are important differences in the capacity of drugs and experience to influence subsequent modifications in dendritic structure.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".