MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131349644 · doi:10.1517/14656560903329102

Mecamylamine – a nicotinic acetylcholine receptor antagonist with potential for the treatment of neuropsychiatric disorders

2009· review· en· W2131349644 on OpenAlexafffund
Ingrid Bacher, Becky S. Wu, Douglas Shytle, Tony P. George

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMecamylamineMedicineNicotinic agonistPharmacologyAntagonistNeuroscienceInternal medicinePsychologyReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mecamylamine (Inversine), the first orally available antihypertensive agent launched in the 1950s, is rarely used today for hypertension because of its widespread ganglionic side effects at antihypertensive doses (25 - 90 mg/day). However, more recent clinical studies suggest that mecamylamine is effective at much lower doses for blocking the central and peripheral effects of nicotine. Pharmacologically, mecamylamine has been well characterized as a nonselective and noncompetitive antagonist of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs). Because mecamylamine easily crosses the blood - brain barrier at relatively low doses (2.5 - 10 mg), it has been used by several research groups over the past two decades investigating the role of central nAChRs in the etiology and treatment of various neuropsychiatric disorders, including addiction disorders, Tourette's syndrome, schizophrenia and various cognitive and mood disorders. Two independent Phase II clinical trials recently confirmed mecamylamine's hypothesized antidepressant activity and suggest that it may be effective as an augmentation pharmacotherapy for SSRI treatment resistant major depression. These areas of investigation for mecamylamine are reviewed and recommendations for future research directions are proposed.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.348 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations98
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on PharmacotherapySame topicNicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors StudyFrench-language works237,207