MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of fluoxetine on memory processes in rats with different phenotypes of the nervous system and different levels of biogenic monoamines of the brain

2020· article· en· W3093379598 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohammad Reza Majidi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Neurology Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluoxetineMonoaminergicMonoamine neurotransmitterSerotoninStimulus (psychology)NeuroscienceNeurotransmissionHippocampal formationEpilepsyPsychologyMedicineInternal medicinePharmacologyEndocrinologyReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Seizures formed in response to a sound in rats allows studying the mechanisms of both occurrence of pathological seizure activity and anti-seizure effects of new medications. Contemporary antidepressants are targeted at enhancing the level of the main neurotransmitters in the brain. One of the important biochemical factors forming mixed anxiety-depressive disorders is serotonin (5-HT). Deficiency of 5-HT leads to impairment of synaptic transmission in neurons of the CNS and forms depressive states. Among the drugs that affect 5-HT synaptic transmission, the leading role is given to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, such as fluoxetine. The present paper explores the effects of the psychopharmacological agent - fluoxetine - on mnestic processes, using a model of passive avoidance on male Wistar rats with different nervous system phenotypes and different activity ratios of the monoaminergic systems of the brains. Methods: The Wistar rats (body mass of 180-220 g) were preliminarily tested for tolerance to acoustic startle stimulus. The difference in the responses to acoustic stimulus allowed dividing the animals into 2 groups: seizure-sensitive (SS – prone to seizures) and seizure-tolerant (ST – without motor excitati-on) ratsSS rats were selected. Both types of the ani-mals were divided into the experimental and cont-rol animals. 1 h prior to the experiment, the experimental animals were intra peritoneally injected with fluoxetine (Pharma science, Montreal, Canada) at a dose of 25mg/kg. The control Rats weread ministered with the diluent distilled water in the equal volume. Results: control ST rats compared to the SS ones had lower rate of PA response retention. However, under administration of fluoxetine, the lower rate of response retention was observed in the SS rats compared to the ST ones. The number of entries to the dark compartment was larger in the SS rats compared to the ST ones. Thus, one part of the SS rats entered and left the dark compartment for several times, while the other part entered immediately the dark compartment and stayed there until the end of the experiment, demonstrating an impairment of retention of the formed response. In the retest session under administration of fluoxetine, the seizure- tolerant rats compared to the seizure-sensitive rats were characterized by a more pronounced fear response to the "unsafe" compartment and enhanced anxiety facilitating the retention of memory trace. Acute administration of fluoxetine led to the opposite effects on memory traces retrieval in the experimental animals of both types. Conclusion: The individual sensitivity of the animals to the action of the psychopharmacological agent fluoxetine and the direction of its effects on mnestic processes are supposed to be associated by different primary activity ratios of the MA-ergic systems of the brain.

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)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Neurology ResearchSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207