Stability of avoidance behaviour following repeated intermittent treatment with clozapine, olanzapine or D,L-govadine
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most antipsychotic drugs act as dopamine D2 receptor antagonists within the basal ganglia. These compounds have efficacy in the treatment of positive symptoms of schizophrenia but do not address the cognitive deficits that define this disorder. D,L-Govadine, a recently synthesized tetrahydroprotoberberine, shows efficacy on preclinical tests of antipsychotic action, as well as procognitive properties. We sought to compare D,L-govadine with two atypical antipsychotics, clozapine and olanzapine, on repeated conditioned avoidance responding (CAR), a task that has recently been utilized to model the effects of repeated antipsychotic treatment. After acquisition of two-way avoidance, rats were given D,L-govadine, clozapine, olanzapine or a vehicle control before repeated testing on CAR. Daily sessions were conducted, with 'drug-on' days spaced by a 'drug-off' test day and a rest day, for a total of five drug administrations. Consistent with previous research, the lower dose of olanzapine showed a modest but progressive increase in disruption of avoidance behaviour as observed with many antipsychotics. In contrast, repeated administration of clozapine led to tolerance, and the novel compound D,L-govadine produced a consistent effect across administrations. This stable effect of D,L-govadine on CAR may indicate a desirable preclinical profile for a candidate antipsychotic compound.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it