MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of the Human Prefrontal Cortex Induces Dopamine Release in the Caudate Nucleus

2001· article· en· W2118266586 on OpenAlexaff
Antonio P. Strafella, Tomáš Paus, Jennifer H. Barrett, Alain Dagher

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCaudate nucleusNeuroscienceDopamineNucleus accumbensTranscranial magnetic stimulationPrefrontal cortexPutamenRaclopridePsychologyDorsolateral prefrontal cortexStimulationDopamine receptorCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dopamine is implicated in movement, learning, and motivation, and in illnesses such as Parkinson's disease, schizophrenia, and drug addiction. Little is known about the control of dopamine release in humans, but research in experimental animals suggests that the prefrontal cortex plays an important role in regulating the release of dopamine in subcortical structures. Here we used [(11)C]raclopride and positron emission tomography to measure changes in extracellular dopamine concentration in vivo after repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in healthy human subjects. Repetitive TMS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex caused a reduction in [(11)C]raclopride binding in the left dorsal caudate nucleus compared with rTMS of the left occipital cortex. There were no changes in binding in the putamen, nucleus accumbens, or right caudate. This shows that rTMS of the prefrontal cortex induces the release of endogenous dopamine in the ipsilateral caudate nucleus. This finding has implications for the therapeutic and research use of rTMS in neurological and psychiatric disorders.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1,049
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207