MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Does nicotine affect D2 receptor upregulation? A case–control study

2004· article· en· W2102437873 on OpenAlexaff
S. Silvestri, Juan-Carlos Negrete, Mary V. Seeman, Chekkera Shammi, Philip Seeman

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Psychiatrica Scandinavica · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDownregulation and upregulationNicotineTardive dyskinesiaHaloperidolRacloprideMedicineReceptorDopamine receptor D2Schizophrenia (object-oriented programming)EndocrinologyInternal medicinePharmacologyPsychologyDopaminePsychiatryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Nicotine has a powerful preventive effect on neuroleptic-induced dopamine D2 receptor upregulation in the rat. The aim of this human positron emission tomography (PET) study was to compare upregulation in a smoker and a non-smoker, both of whom had received haloperidol for the same duration of time. METHOD: Two subjects who had been treated for 16 years with a constant dose of haloperidol were scanned after temporary haloperidol withdrawal, using [11C]-raclopride. RESULTS: The non-smoker, who had received a dose of 10 mg/day, showed a D2 upregulation of 98% and developed severe and persistent symptoms of tardive dyskinesia (TD) upon withdrawal. The chronic smoker, who had been treated with 40 mg/day, displayed a D2 upregulation of 71% and did not develop TD. CONCLUSION: These human observations agree with animal data which showed that nicotine can decrease neuroleptic-induced D2 receptor upregulation. This property of nicotine may play a protective role in movement disorders whose pathophysiology involves D2 receptor hypersensitivity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations17
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Psychiatrica ScandinavicaSame topicNicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors StudyFrench-language works237,207