MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250266931 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp.8466

4.  Differential Impairments in Incentive Learning Caused by First‐ and Second‐ Generation Antipsychotic Drugs

2016· article· en· W4250266931 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Matthew M. Florczynski

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaloperidolNucleus accumbensAntipsychoticDopamineRisperidonePharmacologyPsychologyDopamine receptorNeuroscienceMedicineSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Psychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Schizophrenia is a neuropsychiatric disorder characterized by increased function of dopamine in the brain. Dopamine release is a natural response to reward. It promotes incentive learning (IL), a process by which neutral stimuli acquire the ability to elicit approach and other responses. A recent model characterizes dopamine‐mediated IL as a progressive process with early and late stages accompanied by a shift in neural control from the nucleus accumbens (NAc) to the dorsolateral striatum (DLS). A parallel can be drawn to differences in regionally specific neural responses generated by first‐ and second‐generation antipsychotic drugs (APDs) used to treat schizophrenia. APDs are dopamine receptor antagonists, but first‐generation APDs affect the NAc and DLS while second‐generation APDs affect primarily the NAc. We compared the effects of APDs on IL. Rats (N = 48) were trained to press a lever for food pellets in an operant chamber. Intraperitoneal injections (1 hr before testing) of the first‐generation APD haloperidol (0,0.05,0.10,0.20 mg/kg) or of the second‐generation APD risperidone (0,0.20,0.40,0.80 mg/kg) induced dose‐dependent suppression of lever pressing on days 1‐4, with the highest dose groups failing to demonstrate any evidence of previous learning on day 5 when tested drug‐free. On days 16‐20, haloperidol induced a day‐to‐day suppression not seen with risperidone. The results suggest that the effects of first‐ and second‐generation APDs on learning processes putatively mediated by the NAc and DLS can be differentiated experimentally. The findings imply that APDs may differentially affect IL inpatients with schizophrenia.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorFrench-language works237,207