Elevated striatal dopamine function in immigrants and their children: a risk mechanism for psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Migration is a major risk factor for schizophrenia but the neurochemical processes involved are unknown.One candidate mechanism is through elevations in striatal dopamine synthesis and release.The objective of this research was to determine whether striatal dopamine function is elevated in immigrants compared to nonimmigrants and the relationship with psychosis.Two complementary case-control studies of in vivo dopamine function (stress-induced dopamine release and dopamine synthesis capacity) in immigrants compared to nonimmigrants were performed in Canada and the United Kingdom.The Canadian dopamine release study included 25 immigrant and 31 nonmigrant Canadians.These groups included 23 clinical high risk (CHR) subjects, 9 antipsychotic naïve patients with schizophrenia, and 24 healthy volunteers.The UK dopamine synthesis study included 32 immigrants and 44 nonimmigrant British.These groups included 50 CHR subjects and 26 healthy volunteers.Both striatal stress-induced dopamine release and dopamine synthesis capacity were significantly elevated in immigrants compared to nonimmigrants, independent of clinical status.These data provide the first evidence that the effect of migration on the risk of developing psychosis may be mediated by an elevation in brain dopamine 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".