Effect of conditioned stimuli-triggered memory retrieval-extinction in patients with methamphetamine use disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methamphetamine (METH) is a widely abused stimulant that affects the central nervous system. The persistent maladaptive conditioned stimuli (CS, drug cues)-drug associative memories represent a primary factor precipitating relapse. Interfering with the reconsolidation of these memories may help disrupt and modify these maladaptive CS-drug associations, potentially reducing their influence on drug-seeking behavior. The present study explored the effect of CS-triggered memory retrieval-extinction on METH craving, potentially offering a new treatment strategy for addiction. This was a single-center, randomized, controlled trial involving individuals with METH use disorder (MUD). Participants completed one of three interventions on consecutive days (days 2 and 3): CS-triggered memory retrieval followed by extinction after a 10-min interval, CS-triggered memory retrieval followed by extinction after a 6-h interval, or extinction without prior retrieval. Self-report cue-induced craving for METH, salivary cortisol and sympathetic responses were measured at baseline (day 1), post intervention (day 4) and two follow-up timepoints (days 34 and 184), with cue-induced craving and salivary cortisol as primary outcomes. Ninety-eight MUD individuals (mean age 28.15 ± 6.31) were analyzed. After two-day’s interventions, cue-induced METH craving (time × cue interaction: F (1,94) = 60.02, p < 0.001) reduced in all groups. Results from follow-up data indicated, when the extinction was performed 10 min, but not 6 h after memory retrieval or no retrieval, the intervention decreased experimental cue-induced METH craving (intervention × time × cue: F (2,94) = 14.32, p < 0.001; intervention: F (2,94) = 24.28, p < 0.001) and saliva cortisol increases (F (2,90) = 9.51, p < 0.001), with effects lasting up to 6-month follow-up. The results revealed a substantial reduction in cue-elicited craving and saliva cortisol in the retrieval-10 min-extinction group over the 6-month follow-up. These findings provide compelling evidence that a brief reconsolidation-based intervention can effectively diminish METH-related craving and cortisol levels, underscoring its potential as a supportive measure in METH treatment. Salivary cortisol is a readily accessible and sensitive biomarker for evaluating intervention effects.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".