MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794290225 · doi:10.29252/nirp.bcn.9.2.101

Opioid Receptors Gene Polymorphism and Heroin Dependence in Iran

2018· article· en· W2794290225 on OpenAlexaff
Sara Soleimani Asl, Amir Roointan, Hugo Bergen, Shayan Amiri, Parastoo Mardani, Niloufar Ashtari, Ronak Shabani, Mehdi Mehdizadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueBasic and Clinical Neuroscience Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuropeptides and Animal Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersIran University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsSingle-nucleotide polymorphismOpioidHeroinOpioid receptorAddictionOpiateGenotypeReceptorPolymorphism (computer science)MedicineGeneticsGeneInternal medicinePharmacologyBiologyPsychiatryDrug

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Genes often have multiple polymorphisms that interact with each other and the environment in different individuals. Variability in the opioid receptors can influence opiate withdrawal and dependence. In humans, A118G Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNP) on μ-Opioid Receptor (MOR), 36 G>T in κ-Opioid Receptor (KOR), and T921C in the δ-Opioid Receptor (DOR) have been found to associate with substance dependence. METHODS: To investigate the association between opioid receptors gene polymorphism and heroin addiction, 100 control subjects with no history of opioid use, and 100 heroin addicts (50% males and 50% females) in Tehran (capital of Iran), were evaluated. A118G, 36 G>T, and T921C SNPs on the MOR, KOR, DOR genes, respectively, were genotyped by sequencing. RESULTS: We found no differences in either allele or genotype frequency for MOR, KOR and DOR genes SNPs between controls and subjects addicted to heroin. CONCLUSION: The relationships among polymorphisms may be important in determining the risk profile for complex diseases such as addiction, but opioid addiction is a multifactorial syndrome which is partially hereditary and partially affected by the environment.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.260 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBasic and Clinical Neuroscience JournalSame topicNeuropeptides and Animal PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207