Impairing memory reconsolidation with propranolol in healthy and clinical samples: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Reconsolidation impairment using propranolol is a novel intervention for mental disorders with an emotional memory at their core. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we examined the evidence for this intervention in healthy and clinical adult samples. Methods We searched 8 databases for randomized, double-blind studies that involved at least 1 propranolol group and 1 placebo group. We conducted a meta-analysis of 14 studies ( n = 478) in healthy adults and 12 studies in clinical samples ( n = 446). Results Compared to placebo, reconsolidation impairment under propranolol resulted in reduced recall of aversive material and cue-elicited conditioned emotional responses in healthy adults, as evidenced by an effect size (Hedges g) of −0.51 ( p = 0.002, 2-tailed). Moreover, compared to placebo, reconsolidation impairment under propranolol alleviated psychiatric symptoms and reduced cue-elicited reactivity in clinical samples with posttraumatic stress disorder, addiction or phobia ( g = −0.42, p = 0.010). Limitations Methodological differences between studies posed an obstacle for identifying sources of heterogeneity. Conclusion Reconsolidation impairment is a robust, well-replicated phenomenon in humans. Its clinical use is promising and deserves further controlled investigation.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".