Neural Correlates of Craving in Methamphetamine Abuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Methamphetamine is a powerful psychostimulant that causes significant neurological impairments with long-lasting effects and has provoked serious international concerns about public health. Denial of drug abuse and drug craving are two important factors that make the diagnosis and treatment extremely challenging. Here, we present a novel and rapid noninvasive method with potential application for differentiation and monitoring methamphetamine abuse. METHODS: Visual stimuli comprised a series of images with neutral and methamphetamine-related content. A total of 10 methamphetamine abusers and 10 age-gender matched controls participated in the experiments. Event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded and compared using a time window analysis method. The ERPs were divided into 19 time windows of 100 ms with 50 ms overlaps. The area of positive sections below each window was calculated to measure the differences between the two groups. RESULTS: Significant differences between two groups were observed from 250 to 500 ms (P300) in response to methamphetamine-related visual stimuli and 600 to 800 ms in response to neutral stimuli. CONCLUSION: This study presented a novel and noninvasive method based on neural correlates to discriminate healthy individuals from methamphetamine drug abusers. This method can be employed in treatment and monitoring of the methamphetamine abuse.
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) | 0.002 | 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".