MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neuromelanin levels in individuals with substance use disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4395699770 on OpenAlexafffund
Jessica Ahrens, Farida Zaher, Rachel A. Rabin, Clifford Cassidy, Lena Palaniyappan

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinoids in leukemia and cellular processes
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNeuromelaninSubstantia nigraMeta-analysisAddictionDopaminergicDopamineNeurosciencePsychologySubstance dependenceMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dopamine's role in addiction has been extensively studied, revealing disruptions in its functioning throughout all addiction stages. Neuromelanin in the substantia nigra (SN) may reflect dopamine auto-oxidation, and can be quantified using neuromelaninsensitive magnetic resonance imaging (neuromelanin-MRI) in a non-invasive manner.In this pre-registered systematic review, we assess the current body of evidence related to neuromelanin levels in substance use disorders, using both post-mortem and MRI examinations. The systematic search identified 10 relevant articles, primarily focusing on the substantia nigra. An early-stage meta-analysis (n = 6) revealed varied observations ranging from standardized mean differences of -3.55 to +0.62, with a pooled estimate of -0.44 (95 % CI = -1.52, 0.65), but there was insufficient power to detect differences in neuromelanin content among individuals with substance use disorders. Our gap analysis highlights the lack of sufficient replication studies, with existing studies lacking the power to detect a true difference, and a complete lack of neuromelanin studies on certain substances of clinical interest. We provide recommendations for future studies of dopaminergic neurobiology in addictions and related psychiatric comorbidities.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroscience & Biobehavioral ReviewsSame topicRetinoids in leukemia and cellular processesFrench-language works237,207