Brain region binding of the D<sub>2/3</sub> agonist [<sup>11</sup>C]‐(+)‐PHNO and the D<sub>2/3</sub> antagonist [<sup>11</sup>C]raclopride in healthy humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The D(2) receptors exist in either the high- or low-affinity state with respect to agonists, and while agonists bind preferentially to the high-affinity state, antagonists do not distinguish between the two states. [(11)C]-(+)-PHNO is a PET D(2) agonist radioligand and therefore provides a preferential measure of the D(2) (high) receptors. In contrast, [(11)C]raclopride is an antagonist radioligand and thus binds with equal affinity to the D(2) high- and low-affinity states. The aim was to compare the brain uptake, distribution and binding characteristics between [(11)C]-(+)-PHNO and [(11)C]raclopride in volunteers using a within-subject design. Both radioligands accumulated in brain areas rich in D(2)/D(3)-receptors. However, [(11)C]-(+)-PHNO showed preferential uptake in the ventral striatum and globus pallidus, while [(11)C]raclopride showed preferential uptake in the dorsal striatum. Mean binding potentials were higher in the putamen (4.3 vs. 2.8) and caudate (3.4 vs 2.1) for [(11)C]raclopride, equal in the ventral-striatum (3.4 vs. 3.3), and higher in the globus pallidus for [(11)C]-(+)-PHNO (1.8 vs. 3.3). Moreover [(11)C]-(+)-PHNO kinetics in the globus pallidus showed a slower washout than other regions. One explanation for the preferential binding of [(11)C]-(+)-PHNO in the globus pallidus and ventral-striatum could be the presence of a greater proportion of high- vs. low-affinity receptors in these areas. Alternatively, the observed distribution could also be explained by a preferential binding of D(3)-over-D(2) with [(11)C]-(+)-PHNO. This differential binding of agonist vs. antagonist radioligand, especially in the critically important region of the limbic striatum/pallidum, offers new avenues to investigate the role of the dopamine system in health and disease.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".