Systemic Naloxone Infusion May Trigger Spasticity in Patients With Spinal Cord Injury: Case Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Three patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) and 3 able-bodied (AB) patients were infused with naloxone during a study to examine their neuroendocrine function. An unanticipated side effect occurred during the naloxone infusion. All 3 patients with SCI, but none of the AB patients, experienced profoundly increased spasticity during the naloxone infusion. Our report describes this side effect, which has potential implications for the clinical treatment or scientific evaluation of individuals with SCI. METHODS: All patients were in good general health and medication free for 11 days or longer before the study. Each patient was placed on a 30-hour protocol to analyze pulsatile release of gonadotropins. Physiologic saline was intravenously infused on day 1 to serve as a control period for naloxone infusion on day 2. RESULTS: AB patients experienced no muscle spasm activity or any other side effects at any time during the study. In contrast, all 3 patients with SCI experienced a profoundly increased frequency and duration of spasticity in muscles innervated by the nerve roots caudal to their level of injury. In all 3 patients with SCI, spasticity increased only during the period of naloxone infusion. Within 1 hour of stopping naloxone, spasticity returned to baseline levels. CONCLUSIONS: Naloxone infusion produced a differential effect on the muscle activity of men with SCI compared to AB men with intact spinal circuits. Consistent with previous studies, the results of this study indicate a relationship between opioid neuromodulation and spasticity after SCI.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".