Varying the rate of intravenous cocaine infusion influences the temporal dynamics of both drug and dopamine concentrations in the striatum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The faster drugs of abuse reach the brain, the greater is the risk of addiction. Even small differences in the rate of drug delivery can influence outcome. Infusing cocaine intravenously over 5 vs. 90-100 s promotes sensitization to the psychomotor and incentive motivational effects of the drug and preferentially recruits mesocorticolimbic regions. It remains unclear whether these effects are due to differences in how fast and/or how much drug reaches the brain. Here, we predicted that varying the rate of intravenous cocaine infusion between 5 and 90 s produces different rates of rise of brain drug concentrations, while producing similar peak concentrations. Freely moving male Wistar rats received acute intravenous cocaine infusions (2.0 mg/kg/infusion) over 5, 45 and 90 s. We measured cocaine concentrations in the dorsal striatum using rapid-sampling microdialysis (1 sample/min) and high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. We also measured extracellular concentrations of dopamine and other neurochemicals. Regardless of infusion rate, acute cocaine did not change concentrations of non-dopaminergic neurochemicals. Infusion rate did not significantly influence peak concentrations of cocaine or dopamine, but concentrations increased faster following 5-s infusions. We also assessed psychomotor activity as a function of cocaine infusion rate. Infusion rate did not significantly influence total locomotion, but locomotion increased earlier following 5-s infusions. Thus, small differences in the rate of cocaine delivery influence both the rate of rise of drug and dopamine concentrations, and psychomotor activity. A faster rate of rise of drug and dopamine concentrations might be an important issue in making rapidly delivered cocaine more addictive.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".