Dopaminergic activity in depressed smokers: A positron emission tomography study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tobacco dependence is highly prevalent in depressed patients. We assessed changes in [(11)C]-raclopride binding potential (BP) using positron emission tomography (PET) before and after the oral administration of d-amphetamine in healthy controls and unmedicated patients with current depression with and without current tobacco dependence. Over a single study day 2 [(11)C]-raclopride positron emission tomography scans were taken in 38 subjects: at baseline and 2 h following oral d-amphetamine 30 mg. Twenty controls (9 smokers, 11 nonsmokers) and 18 subjects with current major depressive episode (8 smokers, 10 non-smokers). Striatal [(11)C]-raclopride binding potential was measured before and after d-amphetamine administration. Depressed smokers had a lower baseline [(11)C]-raclopride binding potential compared with both control non-smokers (P < 0.007) and depressed non-smokers (P < 0.001). There was a main effect of smoking status on amphetamine-induced change in [(11)C]-raclopride binding potential (P < 0.02), but no main effect of depression. This may be due to a floor effect because of the low BP at baseline. Depressed subjects reported significant increase of positive mood after d-amphetamine administration compared with controls (depressed smokers vs. control smokers: P < 0.05; depressed non-smokers vs. controls: P < 0.055). Tobacco dependence appears to decrease d-amphetamine-induced changes in [(11)C]-raclopride binding potential as measured by positron emission tomography. Comorbid major depression and tobacco dependence exacerbates this effect, suggesting an altered dopamine system in comorbid patients.
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 | 0.001 | 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".