Synergy between the antinociceptive effects of morphine and NSAIDs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The intraperitoneal administration of morphine, diclofenac, ketoprofen, meloxicam, metamizol, paracetamol and piroxicam induced dose-dependent antinociception in mice tested with the acetic acid writhing test. The isobolographic analysis of the simultaneous intraperitoneal administration of fractions of the ED50's of morphine with each nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) demonstrated the existence of a supra-additive interaction (synergy). The selective antagonist of micro -opioid receptors naltrexone partially reversed the supra-additive interactions to additive interactions; however, the combinations of morphine/metamizol and morphine/paracetamol were completely antagonized, resulting in subadditive interactions. The selective antagonist of delta-opioid receptors naltrindole failed to significantly attenuate the combinations of morphine with ketoprofen, meloxicam and piroxicam, but decreased the activity of the combinations of morphine with diclofenac, metamizol and paracetamol, transforming the interactions from supra-additive to additive. Nor-binaltorphimine was used to evaluate the involvement of kappa-opioid receptors. Nor-binaltorphimine did not modify the supra-additive interaction of morphine and NSAIDs and the additive interaction of the co-administration of morphine and metamizol. The synergy between morphine and NSAIDs could be related to different pathways of pain transmission, probably related to the different intracellular signal transduction mechanisms of action of opioid and non-opioid agents.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".