Development of an Animal Phenotype of Gambling Disorder: Chronic Reward Uncertainty Induces a Gambling Disorder-like State of Sensitization and Dysfunctional Decision-Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gambling Disorder (GD) is a behavioural addiction whose etiology is uncertain. Thus, it is unclear whether repeated exposure to uncertainty may induce a GD-like phenotype (indicated by dopamine (DA) sensitization and risky decision-making). Therefore, rats were trained to nose-poke on a Fixed/Variable Ratio (FR/VR) schedule of reinforcement to activate a conditioned stimulus (CS) that predicted saccharin 50/100% of time (CS50/100%). Following 66 sessions, the VR+CS100% and VR+CS50% rats demonstrated a locomotor sensitization (index of DA sensitization) to a d-amphetamine (AMPH) challenge, while only the VR+CS50% group showed impaired decision-making on the rat gambling task. To determine whether sensitization mediated impaired decision-making in the VR+CS50% group, effects of a sensitizing d-AMPH regimen on decision-making were assessed, and revealed a parallel pattern of impairment. Thus, repeated exposure to a VR schedule is implicated in a d-AMPH-like sensitization that interacted with the uncertain CS50% to mediate dysfunctional decision-making.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".