MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2410962965

Executive function in abstinent MDMA ('ecstasy') users.

2002· article· en· W2410962965 on OpenAlexaff
Zakzanis Kk, Young Da

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicForensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMDMAEcstasyPsychologySerotonergicHallucinogenRecreational useExecutive dysfunctionPsychiatryMedicineSerotoninCognitionRecreationInternal medicineBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, or 'Ecstasy') is a growingly popular recreational drug of abuse that is known to damage brain serotonergic neurons in animals and possibly humans. Few functional consequences of MDMA-induced serotonin neurotoxicity have been identified, either in animals or humans. This study sought to determine whether individuals with a history of MDMA use showed evidence of executive dysfunction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two groups of young individuals were compared: 24 abstinent MDMA users who had taken MDMA at least once and 24 controls who had never taken MDMA. Each MDMA user completed a questionnaire regarding the characteristics of their MDMA use and all participants completed a questionnaire regarding other recreational drug experience. The Behavioural Assessment of the Dysexecutive Syndrome (BADS) was used to measure executive function in all participants. RESULTS: Evidence of impairment was found on two subtests of the BADS and in terms of a Total Profile Score. In addition, several significant product moment correlations were found suggesting that increases in MDMA consumption may relate to more pronounced impairment in executive function. CONCLUSIONS: Accordingly, MDMA use may be associated with deficits in executive function.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations45
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicForensic Toxicology and Drug AnalysisFrench-language works237,207