Neurotrophic factors in women with crack cocaine dependence during early abstinence: the role of early life stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neurotrophic factors have been investigated in the pathophysiology of alcohol and drug dependence and have been related to early life stress driving developmental programming of neuroendocrine systems. METHODS: We conducted a follow-up study that aimed to assess the plasma levels of glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF), brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), nerve growth factor (NGF), neurotrophin-3 (NT3) and neurotrophin-4/5 (NT4/5) in crack users during 3 weeks of early abstinence in comparison with healthy controls. We performed a comprehensive clinical assessment in female inpatients with crack cocaine dependence (separated into 2 groups: participants with (CSA+) and without (CSA-) a history of childhood sexual abuse) and a group of nonuser control participants. RESULTS: Our sample included 104 women with crack cocaine dependence and 22 controls; of the women who used crack cocaine, 22 had a history of childhood sexual abuse and 82 did not. The GDNF plasma levels in the CSA+ group increased dramatically during 3 weeks of detoxification. In contrast, those in the CSA- group showed lower and stable levels of GDNF under the same conditions. Compared with the control group, BDNF plasma levels remained elevated and NGF levels were reduced during early abstinence. We found no differences in NT3 and NT4/5 between the patients and controls. However, within-group analyses showed that the CSA+ group exhibited higher levels of NT4/5 than the CSA- group at the end of detoxification. LIMITATIONS: Some of the participants were using neuroleptics, mood stabilizers or antidepressants; our sample included only women; memory bias could not be controlled; and we did not investigate the possible confounding effects of other forms of stress during childhood. CONCLUSION: This study supports the association between early life stress and peripheral neurotrophic factor levels in crack cocaine users. During early abstinence, plasmastic GDNF and NT4/5 were the only factors to show changes associated with a history of childhood sexual abuse.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".