MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151431586 · doi:10.1155/2011/531435

Efficacy of Chronic Antidepressant Treatments in a New Model of Extreme Anxiety in Rats

2011· article· en· W2151431586 on OpenAlexaff
Hervé Javelot, Luisa Weiner, Roxane Terramorsi, Catherine Rougeot, Robert Lalonde, Michaël Messaoudi

Bibliographic record

VenueDepression Research and Treatment · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicNeuroendocrine regulation and behavior
Canadian institutionsHôpital Saint-Luc
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluoxetineMedicineJumpingAnxietyDiazepamClonazepamAlprazolamAntidepressantPanicPanic disorderAnxiety disorderAnesthesiaPharmacologyInternal medicinePsychiatryPhysiologySerotonin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Animal models of anxious disorders found in humans, such as panic disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder, usually include spontaneous and conditioned fear that triggers escape and avoidance behaviors. The development of a panic disorder model with a learned component should increase knowledge of mechanisms involved in anxiety disorders. In our ethological model of extreme anxiety in the rat, forced apnea was combined with cold water vaporization in an inescapable situation. Based on the reactions of vehicle controls, behaviors involved in paroxysmic fear were passive (freezing) and active (jumping) reactions. Our results show that subchronic fluoxetine (5 mg/kg, IP, 21 days) and imipramine (10 mg/kg, IP, 14 days) administration alleviated freezing and jumping behaviors, whereas acute fluoxetine (1 mg/kg, IP) provoked opposite effects. Acute low dose of diazepam (1 mg/kg, IP) was not effective, whereas the higher dose of 3 mg/kg, IP, and clonazepam (1 mg/kg, IP) only had an effect on jumping. Paroxysmic fear generated in this experimental condition may therefore mimic the symptomatology observed in patients with anxiety 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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.307
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.126 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDepression Research and TreatmentSame topicNeuroendocrine regulation and behaviorFrench-language works237,207