Endogenous Opioids and Addiction to Alcohol and other Drugs of Abuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is significant experimental evidence implicating the endogenous opioid system (opioid peptides and opioid receptors) with the processes of reward and reinforcement. Indeed, many behaviors associated with reward and reinforcement, for example feeding behavior, are controlled by distinct components of the endogenous opioid system located in relevant brain regions. It has also been shown that regardless of their initial site of action many drugs of abuse, such as morphine, nicotine, cocaine, alcohol and amphetamines, induce an increase in the extracellular concentration of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens. This, increased secretion of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens seems to be a common effect of many drugs of abuse, and it was proposed that may mediate their rewarding and reinforcing properties. Furthermore, activation of μ opioid receptors in the ventral tegmental area, or of μ and δ opioid receptors in the nucleus accumbens enhances the extracellular concentration of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens. Thus, stimulation of the activity of distinct components of the endogenous opioid system either by opioid or by other drugs of abuse, may mediate some of their reinforcing effects. In this review article, a brief description of the endogenous opioid system and its implication in the processes of reward and reinforcement of opioid and other drugs of abuse will be presented. Furthermore, the use of opioid antagonists in the treatment of drug addiction will be discussed. Special emphasis will be given to ethanol addiction, the drug mainly studied in my laboratory.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".