MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163512761 · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbu165

Dopaminergic Circuitry and Risk/Reward Decision Making: Implications for Schizophrenia

2014· article· en· W2163512761 on OpenAlexafffund
Colin M. Stopper, Stan Floresco

Bibliographic record

VenueSchizophrenia Bulletin · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTonic (physiology)NeuroscienceDopaminePsychologyNucleus accumbensDopaminergicReward systemPrefrontal cortexCognitive psychologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abnormal reinforcement learning and representations of reward value are present in schizophrenia, and these impairments can manifest as deficits in risk/reward decision making. These abnormalities may be due in part to dopaminergic dysfunction within cortico-limbic-striatal circuitry. Evidence from studies with laboratory animal have revealed that normal DA activity within different nodes of these circuits is critical for mediating dissociable processes that can refine decision biases. Moreover, both phasic and tonic dopamine transmission appear to play separate yet complementary roles in these processes. Tonic dopamine release within the prefrontal cortex and nucleus accumbens, serves as a "running rate-meter" of reward and reflects contextual information such as reward uncertainty and overt choice behavior. On the other hand, manipulations of outcome-related phasic dopamine bursts and dips suggest these signals provide rapid feedback to allow for quick adjustments in choice as reward contingencies change. The lateral habenula is a key input to the DA system that phasic signals is necessary for expressing subjective decision biases; as suppression of activity within this nucleus leads to catastrophic impairments in decision making and random patterns of choice behavior. As schizophrenia is characterized by impairments in using positive and negative feedback to appropriately guide decision making, these findings suggest that these deficits in these processes may be mediated, at least in part, by abnormalities in both tonic and phasic dopamine transmission.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations47
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSchizophrenia BulletinSame topicNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorFrench-language works237,207