ReviewPsychopharmacology2026
Decoding behavioral economics vs. traditional dose response functions in rodent intravenous drug self-administration procedures.
Review in Psychopharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Behavioral economics (BE), as applied to intravenous drug self-administration (IVSA) procedures in animals, has been hailed as an advancement in the psychopharmacology of substance use disorders because it evaluates demand intensity and demand elasticity, crucial determinants of addiction-related phenotypes. However, there is still a disconnect in our understanding of BE analyses within the context of traditional analytical strategies for IVSA data for dose response curves. It is important to understand the fundamentals of BE analysis and its relationship to the classic analytical approach, as well as identify relative strengths and weaknesses of each strategy. To address this, the current manuscript presents identical data sets analyzed using traditional dose response curves (DRCs) and the newer BE framework to decode how simulated differences in one analysis relate to the other. First, the fundamentals of each approach are discussed to set a solid foundation for comparison. Then, simulated data sets are analyzed by both procedures to draw correlations and distinctions. Strengths, weaknesses, and caveats of each analysis are discussed, and the lessons learned are used to set best practices for BE study design. The primary fundamental conclusion is that traditional DRCs or BE effort curves should always be presented along with BE demand curves.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41758356What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.