Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33574737›Full record

ArticleCurrent sexual health reports2020

Sex Differences in Animal Models of Opioid Reward.

Natalie M Lopresti, Manuel Esguerra, Paul G Mermelstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current sexual health reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Effect of Testosterone on Maintenance of Morphine-induced Conditioned Place Preference: Androgen and μ-opioid Receptor Gene Expressions in PFC and NAc of Rats.Clinical psychopharmacology and neuroscience : the official scientific journal of the Korean College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

3 authors.

Natalie M LoprestiUniversity of Minnesota, Twin Cities, Department of Neuroscience.
Manuel EsguerraUniversity of Minnesota, Twin Cities, Department of Neuroscience.
Paul G MermelsteinUniversity of Minnesota, Twin Cities, Department of Neuroscience.

Funding

NEUROSCIENCE TRAINING IN DRUG ABUSE RESEARCHT32DA007234 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI Paul G Mermelstein, Jocelyn M Richard · 1986 to 2026
$10.9M
Estrogen Facilitation of Female Drug RelapseR01DA041808 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI MERMELSTEIN, PAUL G, THOMAS, MARK JOHN · 2016 to 2020
$2.0M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA041808NIDA NIH HHS T32 DA007234
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis review aims to discuss sex differences observed in preclinical rodent models of opioid reward. RECENT

findingsUtilizing a variety of methodological approaches and drug regimens, no clear consensus has emerged regarding the effects of opiates between males and females. This is quite dissimilar to work examining psychostimulants, where female animals reliably exhibit stronger behavioral responses. SUMMARY: With opioid research quickly expanding to determine the neural underpinnings of opioid addiction, further research is essential to determine the conditions wherein sex differences may occur and how they may relate to the human condition.

Indexed as

animal modelsdrug rewardopioid addictionSex hormones

Identifiers

PMID33574737
PMCPMC7872138

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.