Sex Differences in Dopamine Receptors and Relevance to Neuropsychiatric Disorders
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dopamine is an important neurotransmitter that plays a key role in neuropsychiatric illness. Sex differences in dopaminergic signaling have been acknowledged for decades and have been linked to sex-specific heterogeneity in both dopamine-related behaviours as well as in various neuropsychiatric disorders. However, the overall number of studies that have evaluated sex differences in dopamine signaling, both in health and in these disorders, is low. This review will bring together what is known regarding sex differences in innate dopamine receptor expression and function, as well as highlight the known sex-specific roles of dopamine in addiction, depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Due to differences in prognosis, diagnosis, and symptomatology between male and female subjects in disorders that involve dopamine signaling, or in responses that utilize pharmacological interventions that target dopamine receptors, understanding the fundamental sex differences in dopamine receptors is of vital importance for the personalization of therapeutic treatment strategies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it