Revisiting long‐access versus short‐access cocaine self‐administration in rats: intermittent intake promotes addiction symptoms independent of session length
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In rats, continuous cocaine access during long self-administration sessions (6 versus 1-2 hours) promotes the development of behavioral symptoms of addiction. This has led to the assumption that taking large amounts of drug during extended daily bouts is necessary to develop an addiction phenotype. Recent work shows that within-session intermittent access (IntA) to cocaine produces much less drug intake than continuous-access procedures (i.e. long-access sessions) but evokes addiction symptoms more effectively. IntA-sessions are also long, typically lasting 6 hours. It is not known whether IntA-sessions must be extended to promote addiction-relevant changes in drug use over time. Here, we determined the influence of IntA-session length on patterns of cocaine use relevant to addiction. Two groups of male Wistar rats self-administered cocaine (0.25 mg/kg/injection, injected over 5 seconds) during 18 daily IntA-sessions. One group had long 6-hour sessions (Long-IntA), the other group had shorter, 2-hour sessions (Short-IntA). Only Long-IntA rats escalated their cocaine intake over sessions, but both groups developed a burst-like pattern of drug use over time and similar levels of psychomotor sensitization. The two groups also showed robust and similar levels of both responding for cocaine under a progressive ratio schedule of reinforcement and cocaine-induced reinstatement of extinguished drug-seeking behavior. In summary, long IntA-sessions lead to greater cocaine intake than shorter IntA-sessions, but the two conditions are equally effective in evoking the patterns of drug-taking and drug-seeking that define addiction. This suggests that chronic intermittent cocaine use, even during short daily bouts, is sufficient to promote addiction symptoms.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".