Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21158875›Full record

ArticleAlcoholism, clinical and experimental research2011

Amphetamine self-administration in light and moderate drinkers.

Matthew D Stanley, Mégan M Poole, William W Stoops, Craig R Rush

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 48% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Subjective responses predict d-amphetamine choice in healthy volunteers.Pharmacology, biochemistry, and behavior · 2021
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Matthew D StanleyDepartment of Behavioral Science, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, USA.
Mégan M Poole
William W Stoops
Craig R Rush
University of Kentucky · US

Funding

Agonist Replacement Therapy for Methamphetamine Dependence: Human Lab StudiesR01DA025032 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI RUSH, CRAIG R · 2009 to 2013
$1.8M
Agonist Replacement Therapy for Cocaine Dependence: Identifying Novel MedicationsR01DA021155 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI RUSH, CRAIG R · 2006 to 2009
$1.4M
GABAA Modulation as a Target for Developing Medications for Methamphetamine AbuseR01DA025591 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI RUSH, CRAIG R · 2008 to 2012
$1.4M
Human Cocaine DiscriminationR01DA010325 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL CENTER · PI RUSH, CRAIG R · 1997 to 2006
$1.4M
ASSESSING ABUSE POTENTIAL IN HUMAN--CNS STIMULANTSR01DA012665 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI RUSH, CRAIG R · 2001 to 2004
$1.2M
NIDA NIH HHS DA010325NIDA NIH HHS DA012665NIDA NIH HHS DA021155NIDA NIH HHS DA025032NIDA NIH HHS DA02559NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA010325NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA012665NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA021155NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA025032NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA025591
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLight and moderate drinkers respond differently to the effects of abused drugs, including stimulants such as amphetamine. The purpose of this study was to determine whether light and moderate drinkers differ in their sensitivity to the reinforcing and subjective effects of d-amphetamine. We hypothesized that moderate drinkers (i.e., participants that reported consuming at least seven alcohol-containing beverages per week) would be more sensitive to the reinforcing and positive subject-rated effects of d-amphetamine than light drinkers.

methodsData from four studies that employed similar d-amphetamine self-administration procedures and subject-rated drug-effect measures were included in the analysis. Light (n = 17) and moderate (n = 16) drinkers sampled placebo, low (8 to 10 mg), and high (16 to 20 mg) doses of oral d-amphetamine administered in eight capsules. Following sampling sessions, participants worked for a maximum of eight capsules, each containing 12.5% of the previously sampled dose, on a modified progressive-ratio schedule of reinforcement.

resultsBoth active doses of d-amphetamine functioned as a reinforcer in the moderate drinkers, while only the high dose did so in the light drinkers. The moderate drinkers worked for significantly more capsules that contained the high dose of d-amphetamine than did the light drinkers. d-Amphetamine produced prototypical stimulant-like subjective effects (e.g., dose-dependent increases in ratings of Good Effects; Like Drug and Willing to Take Again). Moderate drinkers reported significantly greater subjective effects than the light drinkers.

conclusionThese results are consistent with those from previous laboratory experiments and suggest that moderate alcohol consumption may increase vulnerability to the abuse-related effects of stimulants.

Indexed as

Reinforcement ScheduleAdolescentAdultAlcohol DrinkingAmphetamineBehavior, AddictiveDose-Response Relationship, DrugFemaleHumansMaleSelf AdministrationSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultAmphetamine

Identifiers

PMID21158875
PMCPMC3476462
OpenAlexW1930831382

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.