MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3217277448 · doi:10.82308/50595

Effect of anti-migraine 5-HTBDF receptor agonists on In Vivo serotonin synthesis rates in rat and human brain

2001· article· en· W3217277448 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Colin Dobson

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsSerotoninMigraineIn vivoSerotonin AgonistAgonistPharmacologyReceptor5-HT receptorHuman brainEndocrinologyNeuroscienceChemistryInternal medicineMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose. This work investigates the effect of anti-migraine serotonin (5-HT) receptor agonists (the triptans) on in vivo 5-HT synthesis rates in the brain. In rats, rates are examined after acute and chronic drug administration. In humans, rates are measured in different migrainous conditions, namely, during a headache, after sumatriptan, and between attacks. Methods. Synthesis rates are determined using the alpha-[14C or 11C]methyl- L-tryptophan tracer kinetic model, combined in rats with autoradiography and in humans with positron emission tomography. Results & conclusions . Acute triptan administration reduces 5-HT synthesis rates in rat brain while chronic delivery increases rates at serotonergic projection areas. Preliminary results in human migraine sufferers suggest a trend, though not significant, towards an acute decrease in central rates after sumatriptan injection and higher rates during migraine pain than between attacks. Such central effects might or might not help alleviate pain but would have repercussions for chronic triptan users.

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)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.269 · 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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicMigraine and Headache Studies→French-language works237,207→