ArticlePsychopharmacology2018
5-HT
Article in Psychopharmacology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Revisiting the Role of Serotonin in Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: New Insights from Preclinical and Clinical Studies.Clinical drug investigation · 2025Review
- Dorsal raphe neurons signal integrated value during multi-attribute decision-making.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Article
- A mutant allele of glycoprotein M6-B (Gpm6b) facilitates behavioral flexibility but increases delay discounting.Genes, brain, and behavior · 2022Article
- Which came first: Cannabis use or deficits in impulse control?Progress in neuro-psychopharmacology & biological psychiatry · 2021Review
- The effect of 5-HTThe journal of physiological sciences : JPS · 2019Article
- Brain and Cognition for Addiction Medicine: From Prevention to Recovery Neural Substrates for Treatment of Psychostimulant-Induced Cognitive Deficits.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2019Review
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 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleImpulsive choice has often been evaluated in rodents according to the proportion of choices for the delayed large magnitude reinforcer (%large choice) in a delay-discounting task (DDT). However, because %large choice is influenced by both sensitivity to reinforcer magnitude and sensitivity to delayed reinforcement (i.e., discounting rate), distinctively evaluating such discounting parameters represents a critical issue demanding methods to determine each parameter in rats. The serotonin (5-HT) system is well known to be involved in impulsive choice; nevertheless, only a few studies have distinguished discounting parameters and investigated how 5-HT modulators affect discounting rate.
objectiveHere, we performed a discounting parameter analysis in mice and examined the effects of various 5-HT modulators on discounting rate.
methodsWe set up DDTs with different delay schedules to determine which schedule could address delay-discounting rates in mice. We examined the effect of the following drugs on impulsive choice: a 5-HT reuptake inhibitor (paroxetine), a 5-HT
resultsMice showed typical delay discounting at the shorter delay schedules (up to 4 s delay). The %large choice under shorter, but not longer, schedules followed an exponential function and allowed us to derive discounting rates. We selected a DDT with a 4-s delay schedule for further experiments. Granisetron and ondansetron, but not paroxetine or 8-OH-DPAT, decreased discounting rates without affecting sensitivity to reinforcer magnitude.
conclusionWe found that a method to calculate discounting rates in rats is also applicable to mouse models. We also provided evidence that 5-HT
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.