MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074050833 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0028370

The Dopamine Augmenter L-DOPA Does Not Affect Positive Mood in Healthy Human Volunteers

2012· article· en· W2074050833 on OpenAlexafffund
John Liggins, Robert O. Pihl, Chawki Benkelfat, Marco Leyton

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcGill University
KeywordsDopamineNeurotransmissionNeurotransmitterMoodLevodopaAffect (linguistics)NeuroscienceAnimal studiesPsychologyMedicinePharmacologyEndocrinologyInternal medicineParkinson's diseasePsychiatryDiseaseCentral nervous systemReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dopamine neurotransmission influences approach toward rewards and reward-related cues. The best cited interpretation of this effect proposes that dopamine mediates the pleasure that commonly accompanies reward. This hypothesis has received support in some animal models and a few studies in humans. However, direct assessments of the effect of transiently increasing dopamine neurotransmission have been largely limited to the use of psychostimulant drugs, which elevate brain levels of multiple neurotransmitters in addition to dopamine. In the present study we tested the effect of more selectively elevating dopamine neurotransmission, as produced by administration of the immediate dopamine precursor, L-DOPA (0, 100/25, 200/50 mg, Sinemet), in healthy human volunteers. Neither dose altered positive mood. The results suggest that dopamine neurotransmission does not directly influence positive mood in humans.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations57
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorFrench-language works237,207