MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Genetic factors modulate effects of C-section birth on dopaminergic function in the rat

2000· article· en· W2086405692 on OpenAlexaff
Neil Berger, Cathy Vaillancourt, Patricia Boksa

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDopaminergicNeuroscienceBiologyFunction (biology)Section (typography)DopamineCentral nervous systemEndocrinologyCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetic predisposition and environmental factors such as perinatal complications are believed to contribute to the etiology of schizophrenia, a disorder involving enhanced CNS dopaminergic activity. This study used a rat model to test whether genetic factors and a minor birth complication, i.e. Caesarean section (C-section) birth, interact in producing longterm effects on dopamine-mediated behavior. For this, we compared the effects of vaginal and C-section birth on amphetamine (AMPT)-induced locomotor activity in strains of rats differing in genetic composition. In Sprague-Dawley rats, C-section birth increased AMPT-induced locomotion compared with vaginal birth. By contrast in Lewis rats, C-section birth reduced AMPT-induced locomotion compared with vaginal birth. In Fischer rats, AMPT-induced locomotion was increased by C-section under maternal anesthesia but decreased by C-section after maternal decapitation, compared with vaginal birth. It is concluded that a minor birth complication like C-section can have differing long-term effects on dopaminergic function in the rat, depending on the genetic composition of the individual.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 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

Citations15
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicBirth, Development, and HealthFrench-language works237,207