PET Study of [<sup>18</sup>F]6-Fluoro-<scp>l</scp>-Dopa Uptake in Neuroleptic- and Mood-Stabilizer-Naive First-Episode Nonpsychotic Mania: Effects of Treatment With Divalproex Sodium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although dopaminergic hyperactivity has been implicated in mania, the precise location in the brain of the abnormality is unclear. This study assessed presynaptic dopamine function in neuroleptic- and mood-stabilizer-naive nonpsychotic first-episode manic patients before and after treatment with divalproex sodium by measuring [(18)F]6-fluoro-L-dopa ([(18)F]DOPA) uptake in the striatum with positron emission tomography (PET). METHOD: Thirteen patients with DSM-IV bipolar I disorder, manic episode, and 13 healthy comparison subjects underwent [(18)F]DOPA PET scans. Ten of the 13 patients had repeat PET scans 2-6 weeks after beginning treatment with divalproex sodium monotherapy. [(18)F]DOPA uptake rate constants (K(i) values) in the striatum were calculated by using graphical analysis with activity from the occipital cortex as the input function. RESULTS: No significant differences in [(18)F]DOPA uptake rate constants in the striatum were found between the manic patients and the comparison subjects. After treatment with divalproex sodium, [(18)F]DOPA rate constants were significantly reduced in the patients and were lower in the patients than in the comparison subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Although presynaptic dopamine function as reflected by [(18)F]DOPA uptake is not altered in mania, presynaptic dopamine function in manic patients was lower after treatment with divalproex sodium.
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 | 0.000 | 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".