Dopamine cross-sensitization between psychostimulant drugs and stress in healthy male volunteers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dysregulation of the stress response system is a potential etiological factor in the development of and relapse to multiple neuropsychiatric disorders. Previously we reported that repeated intermittent d-amphetamine administration can lead to progressively greater dopamine release, thereby providing evidence of drug-induced neurochemical sensitization. Here, we test the hypothesis that repeated exposure to d-amphetamine increases dopaminergic responses to stress; that is, produces cross-sensitization. Using positron emission tomography, we measured in 17 healthy male volunteers (mean ± s.d. = 22.1 ± 3.4 years) [(11)C]raclopride binding responses to a validated psychosocial stress task before and 2 weeks after a regimen of repeated d-amphetamine (3 × 0.3 mg kg(-1), by mouth; n = 8) or placebo (3 × lactose, by mouth; n = 9). Mood and physiological measurements were recorded throughout each session. Before the d-amphetamine regimen, exposure to the stress task increased behavioral and physiological indices of stress (anxiety, heart rate, cortisol, all P ⩽ 0.05). Following the d-amphetamine regimen, the stress-induced cortisol responses were augmented (P < 0.04), and voxel-based analyses showed larger stress-induced decreases in [(11)C]raclopride non-displaceable binding potential across the striatum. In the placebo group, re-exposure to stress led to smaller clusters of decreased [(11)C]raclopride binding, primarily in the sensorimotor striatum (P < 0.05). Together, this study provides evidence for drug × stress cross-sensitization; moreover, random exposure to stimulants and/or stress cumulatively, while enhancing dopamine release in striatal areas, may contribute to a lowered set point for psychopathologies in which altered dopamine neurotransmission is invoked.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".