MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133066664

The role of 5-HT2A vs. 5-HT2C receptor subtypes in haloperidol-induced dyskinetic effects

2006· dissertation· W7133066664 on OpenAlexaff
Alhan Oraha

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2006
Typedissertation
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsBank of CanadaLibrary and Archives Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTardive dyskinesiaAntipsychoticReceptorDyskinesiaHaloperidolBlockadeCatalepsyReceptor antagonistSigma-1 receptorAntagonist
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute and chronic administration of typical antipsychotic (AP) drugs indures extrapyramidal side effects (EPS) and tardive dyskinesia (TD), respectively. Serotonin 5-HT2A/2C receptors have been suggested to modulate these side effects, but the specific contribution of each 5-HT2 subtype (5-HT2A vs. 5-HT2C) has not been determined. In the first study, acute co-administration of haloperidol (HAL) with 5-HT2A or 5-HT2C receptor antagonist did not produce a clozapine-like c-fos induction pattern in the brain, whereas blocking 5-HT 2C, but not 5-HT2A, receptors attenuated HAL-Induced catalepsy in a dose-dependent manner. In a separate study, chronic HAL altered 5-HT 2C receptor mRNA levels in specific brain areas, while 5-HT2A receptor mRNA levels were unaltered in any region. Chronic HAL Induced higher vacuous chewing movements (VCMs) in males than in females suggesting that this model may not be a good representative of the human female vulnerability to TD. Blocking 5-HT2A or 5-HT2C attenuated HAL-Induced VCMs in males, but not in females. Considering all the data, selective 5-HT 2C blockade may be a strategy of choice for countering both acute and chronic dyskinesic effects of APs.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicSchizophrenia research and treatment→French-language works237,207→