MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3038695682 · doi:10.1111/ejn.14895

Decreased risk‐taking and loss‐chasing after subthalamic nucleus lesion in rats

2020· article· en· W3038695682 on OpenAlexaff
Emmanuel Breysse, Julie Meffre, Yann Pelloux, Catharine A. Winstanley, Christelle Baunez

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Neuroscience · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersAssociation France ParkinsonCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsSubthalamic nucleusLesionNucleusNeurosciencePsychologyMedicineInternal medicineDeep brain stimulationPsychiatryParkinson's diseaseDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The subthalamic nucleus (STN) is known to play a role in the control of impulsivity of action and in impulsivity of choice under certain conditions. In order to assess its influence on decision-making under uncertainty, we have tested here the effects of bilateral STN lesions in rats performing a probability discounting task (PDT) and a "loss-chasing" task, both tasks assessing risky decision under uncertainty, but one in a positive context (probability to obtain a larger reward) and the other in a negative context (risk for a larger loss). The PDT measures the choice between a small certain and a large uncertain reward. Conversely, in the "loss-chasing" task, animals choose between accepting a small certain loss versus risking a larger but uncertain penalty. The results show that STN lesions reduce risk-taking in both the PDT and the loss-chasing task, suggesting that STN inactivation could decrease risky decision-making whatever the nature of the outcome in an ambiguous context. Interestingly, opposite results were found in a small number of animals for which the lesions extended to the area dorsal to the STN (in the zona incerta), such that these animals increased choice of the uncertain option in the PDT. These results confirm the specificity of STN involvement in these processes and may provide explanations for some side-effects reported in patients when STN manipulations extend to the Zona Incerta. They also support the choice of the STN as a target for the treatment of impulse control disorders in Parkinson's disease and in obsessive compulsive disorders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207