MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neural correlates of impulsivity in amphetamine use disorder

2024· article· en· W4400401699 on OpenAlexaff
Neda Kaboodvand, Mehran Shabanpour, Joar Guterstam

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatry Research Neuroimaging · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersVetenskapsrådetSvenska Sällskapet för Medicinsk Forskning
KeywordsImpulsivityBarratt Impulsiveness ScaleAmphetaminePsychologyAddictionClinical psychologyPsychiatryNeuroscienceDopamine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Impulsivity is a trait associated with several psychiatric conditions, not least addictive disorders. While the neural mechanisms behind certain aspects of impulsivity have been studied extensively, there are few imaging studies examining this neurocircuitry in populations with substance use disorders. Therefore, we aimed to examine the functional connectivity of relevant neural networks, and their possible association with trait impulsivity, in a sample with severe amphetamine use disorder and a control group of healthy subjects. We used data collected in a randomized clinical trial studying the acute effects of oral naltrexone in amphetamine use disorder. Our final sample included 32 amphetamine users and 27 healthy controls. Trait impulsivity was rated with the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11, and functional connectivity was measured during resting-state fMRI, looking specifically at networks involving prefrontal regions previously implicated in studies of impulsivity. Amphetamine users had higher subjective ratings of impulsivity as compared to healthy controls, and these scores correlated positively with a wide-spread prefrontal hyperconnectivity that was found among the amphetamine users. These findings highlight the importance of aberrant prefrontal function in severe addiction.

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)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatry Research NeuroimagingSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207