Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been considerable interest in modulating dopaminergic transmission for drug dependence treatment. However, the fact that dopamine (DA) acts through different receptor subtypes that may have different, perhaps opposing, properties have made the development of viable treatment strategies complex and challenging. It was initially thought that only two receptor subtypes, D1 and D2 receptors, defined on the basis of their distinct transduction mechanisms and pharmacological profiles, mediated the pleiotropic actions of DA. However, soon after D1 (Monsma et al. 1991) and D2 (Bunzow et al. 1988) receptors were cloned, D3 (Sokoloff et al. 1990), D4 (van Tol et al. 1991) and D5 (Sunahara et al. 1991) receptors were also discovered. Those five DA receptor subtypes, termed DRD1–DRD5 are categorized as either D1-like (DRD1 and DRD5) or D2-like (DRD2, DRD3 and DRD4) based on sequence homology and pharmacology (Le Foll et al. 2009). Among those receptors, we and others have proposed that targeting the DRD3 (Heidbreder & Newman, 2010; Le Foll et al. 2005; Newman et al. 2005) and DRD4 (Yan et al. 2012) may be a novel strategy for treatment of drug dependence. However, despite the recent development of promising molecules (particularly DRD3 ligands) by multiple pharmaceutical drug companies, the translational move forward to the clinic has been stalled, in part because of the loss of interest by pharmaceutical companies, of research in the area of neuropsychiatric disorders. In this context, the report recently published by Bergman et al. (2012) suggesting that buspirone binds to DRD3 and DRD4 (among other targets), and may thus aid drug-use cessation, is exciting and timely, especially considering that buspirone is an already-approved medication with a known …
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".