2. A role for DA Mechanisms in the ovBNST in Compulsive Responding in Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Out of the primary characteristics of drug addiction, compulsive drug seeking and intake is perhaps the most insidious, as it results in voluntary substance use despite negative physical and social consequences. For substances that are not considered classically addictive, such as sucrose, animal models of drug addiction may be utilized to explore reward-related synaptic changes underlying compulsive behavior similarly observed in binge eating disorders. Binge eaters, like those who compulsively seek out and consume drugs, continue to consume food despite the negative consequences. Based on previous work done by Maracle (2012), we examined the effects of modulating signalling in the oval bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (ovBNST) with a competitive D1 antagonist and its effects on compulsive intake. Prior to the intermitted access phase, subjects (N=66) underwent intracranial surgeries targeting the ovBNST. We utilized the same intermitted access cycle developed by (Avena, 2010). The subjects were randomly assigned to one of the four groups, 12-hr sucrose (primary experimental group),12-hr saccharine (sweet taste control group), 12-hr food only group, and a 24-hr sucrose/food group. After the 28-day cycle, subjects were then randomly assigned to received infusions of either saline or a selective D1 antagonist (SCH 23390) 10mins prior to testing. Compulsive responding for sucrose was then assessed using a conditioned suppression paradigm. It was hypothesized that infusing a DA antagonist into the ovBNST will decrease compulsive responding in subjects who demonstrate bingeing behaviour during the intermitted access phase, but will not affect animals that do not demonstrate bingeing behavior.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".