ReviewCurrent neuropharmacology2023
Differential Neurobiological Markers in Phenotype-stratified Rats Modeling High or Low Vulnerability to Compulsive Behavior: A Narrative Review.
Review in Current neuropharmacology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sex differences in compulsive alcohol drinking phenotypes: implications for decision-making and social behavior in a preclinical model.Psychopharmacology · 2026Article
- A review of the neuropharmacological profile of schedule-induced polydipsia.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior · 2026Review
- Increased Neuroplasticity in Frontal Cortex to Reduce Compulsive Behavior: A Preclinical tDCS Study in Male Rats.Molecular neurobiology · 2025Article
- Mapping the neuroanatomical abnormalities in a phenotype of male compulsive rats.Behavioral and brain functions : BBF · 2023Article
- Behavioral domains in compulsive rats: implications for understanding compulsive spectrum disorders.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2023Article
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Compulsivity is a key manifestation of inhibitory control deficit and a cardinal symptom in different neuropsychopathological disorders such as obsessive-compulsive disorder, schizophrenia, addiction, and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Schedule-induced polydipsia (SIP), is an animal model to study compulsivity. In this procedure, rodents develop excessive and persistent drinking behavior under different food-reinforcement schedules, that are not related to homeostatic or regulatory requirements. However, there are important individual differences that support the role of high-drinker HD rats as a compulsive phenotype, characterized in different paradigms by inhibitory response deficit, cognitive inflexibility, and resistant to extinction behavior; with significant differences in response to pharmacological challenges, and relevant neurobiological alterations in comparison with the control group, the non-compulsive low drinker LD group on SIP. The purpose of this review is to collate and update the main findings on the neurobiological bases of compulsivity using the SIP model. Specifically, we reviewed preclinical studies on SIP, that have assessed the effects of serotonergic, dopaminergic, and glutamatergic drugs; leading to the description of the neurobiological markers, such as the key role of the serotonin 5-HT2A receptor and glutamatergic signaling in a phenotype vulnerable to compulsivity as high drinker HD rats selected by SIP. The review of the main findings of HD rats on SIP helps in the characterization of the preclinical compulsive phenotype, disentangles the underlying neurobiological, and points toward genetic hallmarks concerning the vulnerability to compulsivity.
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.