Effect of the anticonvulsant medications Pregabalin and Lamotrigine on urodynamic parameters in an animal model of neurogenic detrusor overactivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To assess the effects of different doses and treatment durations of pregabalin and lamotrigine on the urodynamic parameters of an animal model of neurogenic detrusor overactivity (NDO). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety rats were used; six as normal controls and the remaining 84 were divided as follows: Six "paraplegic controls," 6 "paraplegic-vehicle controls," and the remaining 72 divided into two equal groups. Group 1 was divided into six subgroups; pregabalin was given in doses of 10 mg/kg, 20 mg/kg, or 30 mg/kg for 1 or 2 weeks. Group 2 was similarly subdivided; lamotrigine was given in doses of 1.5 mg/kg, 3 mg/kg, or 6 mg/kg for 1 or 2 weeks. RESULTS: All paraplegic controls developed NDO within 3 weeks from spinalization. Their baseline bladder pressure (BBP) 19 ± 4.4 cmH(2) O, detrusor pressure at maximum capacity (DPMaxC) 47.6 ± 4.3 cmH(2) O, bladder capacity (BC) 0.45 ± 0.1 ml, and frequency of detrusor overactivity (FDO) 3.7 ± 0.9/min. Both pregabalin and lamotrigine produced significant improvement. Urodynamic values in those treated with 20 mg pregabalin for 1 or 2 weeks were: BBP 11.7 ± 1.3 and 9 ± 0.2 cmH(2) O, BC 0.6 ± 0.1 and 0.7 ± 0.01 ml, DPMaxC 17.3 ± 4.0 and 23 ± 2.6 cmH(2) O, FDO 2.1 ± 0.2/min and 1.7 ± 0.1/min. Urodynamic values in those treated with 3 mg/kg lamotrigine for 1 or 2 weeks were: BBP 9.7 ± 2.2 and 8.6 ± 1.9 cmH(2) O, DPMaxC 17.2 ± 1.8 and 29 ± 1.2 cmH(2) O, BC 0.7 ± 0.1 and 0.8 ± 0.1 ml, FDO 1.9 ± 0.2/min and 1.9 ± 0.2/min (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Pregabalin and lamotrigine may represent novel alternative treatments of NDO. Clinical trials remain to be performed.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".