MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413981450 · doi:10.1139/jpn.0919

Glutamate and dopamine components in schizophrenia

2009· article· en· W4413981450 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Philip Seeman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDopamineSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Dopamine hypothesis of schizophreniaNeuroscienceGlutamate receptorPsychologyPsychiatryMedicineDopaminergicInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The treatment of schizophrenia for the last half century has been with dopamine (DA) D2 receptor blockers, implicating a hyperdopamine basis for psychosis. However, a 2007 report found that the glutamate agonist LY404039 was effective in schizophrenia, suggesting a hypoglutamate state for the illness. Although phencyclidine psychosis also supports a hypoglutamate cause, assessing the basic and clinical findings shows that phencyclidine has DA D2 agonist actions as well. Accurate Dreiding models of phencyclidine and the LY glutamate agonists precisely fit the known tetrahedral model of the D2 receptor that accommodates all DA agonists. A further view is that metabotropic glutamate agonists also exert D2 agonism, and their antipsychotic doses (about 100 mg/d) are predicted by their dissociation constants (about 20 nM) for D2. Hence, the clinical antipsychotic action of a glutamate agonist may depend on its ability to interfere with DA neurotransmission by its DA partial agonism.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience→Same topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research→French-language works237,207→