Sex differences in cocaine self‐administration behaviour under long access versus intermittent access conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies in humans suggest that women progress more rapidly from initial cocaine use to addiction. Similarly, female rats can show more incentive motivation for cocaine than male rats do. Most preclinical studies on this issue have used self-administration procedures that provide continuous cocaine access during each session ("long-access" or LgA and "short-access"). However, intermittent access (IntA) cocaine self-administration better models the intermittency of human cocaine use. Here, we compared cocaine use in female and male rats that received ten, daily 6-hour LgA or IntA sessions. Cocaine intake was greatest under LgA, and female LgA rats escalated their intake. Only IntA rats (both sexes) developed locomotor sensitization to self-administered cocaine, and sensitization was greatest in females. Five and 25 days after the last self-administration session, we quantified responding for cocaine (0.083-0.75 mg/kg/infusion) under a progressive ratio (PR) schedule, a measure of motivation for drug. Across conditions, females earned more cocaine infusions than males under the PR schedule. Across sexes, IntA rats earned more infusions than LgA rats, even though IntA rats had previously taken much less cocaine. Cumulative cocaine intake significantly predicted responding for cocaine under the PR schedule in male LgA rats only. In IntA rats, the extent of locomotor sensitization significantly predicted responding under the PR schedule. Thus, LgA might be appropriate to study sex differences in cocaine intake, whereas IntA might be best suited to study sex differences in sensitization-related neuroadaptations involved in cocaine addiction. This has implications for modelling distinct features of cocaine addiction in preclinical studies.
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) | 0.003 | 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".