MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407642180 · doi:10.7554/elife.105214

Computational modelling identifies key determinants of subregion-specific dopamine dynamics in the striatum

2025· preprint· en· W4407642180 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Aske L. Ejdrup, Matthew D. Lycas, Søren H. Jørgensen, Trevor W. Robbins, Jeffrey W. Dalley, Freja Herborg, Ulrik Gether

Bibliographic record

VenueeLife · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLundbeckfondenNYU Grossman School of MedicineH. Lundbeck A/SYork University
KeywordsKey (lock)StriatumDopamineDynamics (music)NeuroscienceComputer scienceBiologyPsychologyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Striatal dopamine (DA) release regulates reward-related learning and motivation and is believed to consist of a short-lived phasic and continuous tonic component. Here, we build a large-scale three-dimensional model of extracellular DA dynamics in dorsal (DS) and ventral striatum (VS). The model predicts rapid dynamics in DS with little to no basal DA and slower dynamics in the VS enabling build-up of tonic DA levels. These regional differences do not reflect release-related phenomena but rather differential dopamine transporter (DAT) activity. Interestingly, our simulations posit DAT nanoclustering as a possible regulator of this activity. Receptor binding simulations show that D1 receptor occupancy follows extracellular DA concentration with milliseconds delay, while D2 receptors do not respond to brief pauses in firing but rather integrate DA signal over seconds. Summarised, our model distills recent experimental observations into a computational framework that challenges prevailing paradigms of striatal DA signalling.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeLifeSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207