Dopamine dysregulation syndrome: implications for a dopamine hypothesis of bipolar disorder
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Rational therapeutic development in bipolar is hampered by a lack of pathophysiological model. However, there is a wealth of converging data on the role of dopamine in bipolar disorder. This paper therefore examines the possibility of a dopamine hypothesis for bipolar disorder. METHOD: A literature search was conducted using standard search engines Embase, PyschLIT, PubMed and MEDLINE. In addition, papers and book chapters known to the authors were retrieved and examined for further relevant articles. RESULTS: Collectively, in excess of 100 articles were reviewed from which approximately 75% were relevant to the focus of this paper. CONCLUSION: Pharmacological models suggest a role of increased dopaminergic drive in mania and the converse in depression. In Parkinson's disease, administration of high-dose dopamine precursors can produce a 'maniform' picture, which switches into a depressive analogue on withdrawal. It is possible that in bipolar disorder there is a cyclical process, where increased dopaminergic transmission in mania leads to a secondary down regulation of dopaminergic receptor sensitivity over time. This may lead to a period of decreased dopaminergic transmission, corresponding with the depressive phase, and the repetition of the cycle. This model, if verified, may have implications for rational drug development.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it