ReviewNeuropharmacology2014
Predicting abuse potential of stimulants and other dopaminergic drugs: overview and recommendations.
Review in Neuropharmacology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychedelic studies in nonhuman primates: Past and future.Molecular psychiatry · 2026Review
- Discriminating evidence - use and misuse of the drug-discrimination test in abuse potential assessment of novel CNS drugs.Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) · 2025Review
- The influence of drug class on reward in substance use disorders.Pharmacology, biochemistry, and behavior · 2024Review
- Environmental Uncertainty and Substance Use Disorders: A Behavior Analytic Perspective.Policy insights from the behavioral and brain sciences · 2023Article
- Relative reinforcing effects of dibutylone, ethylone, and N-ethylpentylone: self-administration and behavioral economics analysis in rats.Psychopharmacology · 2022Article
- Sensitization-based risk for substance abuse in vulnerable individuals with ADHD: Review and re-examination of evidence.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2022Review
- A comparison of reinforcing effectiveness and drug-seeking reinstatement of 2-fluorodeschloroketamine and ketamine in self-administered rats.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2022Article
- Effects of β-Phenylethylamine on Psychomotor, Rewarding, and Reinforcing Behaviors and Affective State: The Role of Dopamine D1 Receptors.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Unpredictability as a modulator of drug self-administration: Relevance for substance-use disorders.Behavioural processes · 2020Review
- The Abuse Potential of Novel Synthetic Phencyclidine Derivative 1-(1-(4-Fluorophenyl)Cyclohexyl)Piperidine (4'-F-PCP) in Rodents.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Article
- Presynaptic dopamine function measured with [Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Pharmacotherapies for decreasing maladaptive choice in drug addiction: Targeting the behavior and the drug.Pharmacology, biochemistry, and behavior · 2018Review
- Utility of Nonhuman Primates in Substance Use Disorders Research.ILAR journal · 2017Review
- Self-administration and behavioral economics of second-generation synthetic cathinones in male rats.Psychopharmacology · 2017Article
- Human drug discrimination: A primer and methodological review.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2016Review
- Adolescent D-amphetamine treatment in a rodent model of ADHD: Pro-cognitive effects in adolescence without an impact on cocaine cue reactivity in adulthood.Behavioural brain research · 2016Article
- Intravenous self-administration of mephedrone, methylone and MDMA in female rats.Neuropharmacology · 2015Article
- Discriminative-stimulus effects of second generation synthetic cathinones in methamphetamine-trained rats.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2015Article
- Serotonin 5-HT2 receptor interactions with dopamine function: implications for therapeutics in cocaine use disorder.Pharmacological reviews · 2015Review
- Intracranial self-stimulation to evaluate abuse potential of drugs.Pharmacological reviews · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Examination of a drug's abuse potential at multiple levels of analysis (molecular/cellular action, whole-organism behavior, epidemiological data) is an essential component to regulating controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). We reviewed studies that examined several central nervous system (CNS) stimulants, focusing on those with primarily dopaminergic actions, in drug self-administration, drug discrimination, and physical dependence. For drug self-administration and drug discrimination, we distinguished between experiments conducted with rats and nonhuman primates (NHP) to highlight the common and unique attributes of each model in the assessment of abuse potential. Our review of drug self-administration studies suggests that this procedure is important in predicting abuse potential of dopaminergic compounds, but there were many false positives. We recommended that tests to determine how reinforcing a drug is relative to a known drug of abuse may be more predictive of abuse potential than tests that yield a binary, yes-or-no classification. Several false positives also occurred with drug discrimination. With this procedure, we recommended that future research follow a standard decision-tree approach that may require examining the drug being tested for abuse potential as the training stimulus. This approach would also allow several known drugs of abuse to be tested for substitution, and this may reduce false positives. Finally, we reviewed evidence of physical dependence with stimulants and discussed the feasibility of modeling these phenomena in nonhuman animals in a rational and practical fashion. This article is part of the Special Issue entitled 'CNS Stimulants'.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.