Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26772794›Full record

ReviewPharmacological reviews2016

Sex Differences in Animal Models: Focus on Addiction.

Jill B Becker, George F Koob

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pharmacological reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 479 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
479citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

479 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Postepy psychiatrii neurologii · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Chronic ethanol self-administration alters dopamine in the caudate nucleus and putamen of rhesus macaques in a sex-dependent manner.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

419 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Jill B BeckerMolecular & Behavioral Neuroscience Institute, Department of Psychiatry, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (J.B.B.); and Director, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland (G.F.K.).
George F KoobMolecular & Behavioral Neuroscience Institute, Department of Psychiatry, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (J.B.B.); and Director, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland (G.F.K.) george.koob@nih.gov.

Funding

Neurobiology of AddictionZICDA000602 · NIDA · NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE · PI KOOB, GEORGE · 2015 to 2018
$5.4M
Social support and addiction: cross talk between oxytocin and dopamineR21DA032747 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI BECKER, JILL B. · 2012 to 2013
$410k
NIDA NIH HHS 5R21DA032747NIDA NIH HHS R21 DA032747
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this review is to discuss ways to think about and study sex differences in preclinical animal models. We use the framework of addiction, in which animal models have excellent face and construct validity, to illustrate the importance of considering sex differences. There are four types of sex differences: qualitative, quantitative, population, and mechanistic. A better understanding of the ways males and females can differ will help scientists design experiments to characterize better the presence or absence of sex differences in new phenomena that they are investigating. We have outlined major quantitative, population, and mechanistic sex differences in the addiction domain using a heuristic framework of the three established stages of the addiction cycle: binge/intoxication, withdrawal/negative affect, and preoccupation/anticipation. Female rats, in general, acquire the self-administration of drugs and alcohol more rapidly, escalate their drug taking with extended access more rapidly, show more motivational withdrawal, and (where tested in animal models of "craving") show greater reinstatement. The one exception is that female rats show less motivational withdrawal to alcohol. The bases for these quantitative sex differences appear to be both organizational, in that estradiol-treated neonatal animals show the male phenotype, and activational, in that the female phenotype depends on the effects of gonadal hormones. In animals, differences within the estrous cycle can be observed but are relatively minor. Such hormonal effects seem to be most prevalent during the acquisition of drug taking and less influential once compulsive drug taking is established and are linked largely to progesterone and estradiol. This review emphasizes not only significant differences in the phenotypes of females and males in the domain of addiction but emphasizes the paucity of data to date in our understanding of those differences.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalSubstance-Related DisordersAnimalsHumansSex Characteristics

Identifiers

PMID26772794
PMCPMC4813426

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.