Treatments for neuropathic pain differentially affect delayed matching accuracy by macaques: Effects of amitriptyline and gabapentin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current clinical treatments for neuropathic pain include amitriptyline, a tricyclic antidepressant with mixed pharmacology that is also clinically reported to impair cognitive performance; and gabapentin, a compound that selectively interacts with alpha2delta-1 calcium channel subunits. Since few assessments of cognitive performance have been made in non-human primates with these marketed treatments, the purpose of this study was to determine their relative abilities to alter working memory as measured in mature macaques in their performance of a delayed matching-to-sample task. Four delay intervals of increasing duration provided increasing impairment in task accuracies during vehicle sessions. Administration of clinically relevant doses of amitriptyline significantly decreased task accuracy at the highest dose tested (3mg/kg). Administration of gabapentin increased mean task accuracy, though the effect was not statistically significant until intra-subject variability was reduced by selecting the individual best dose for each animal (which averaged 12.8mg/kg). Most of the effect was obtained during the presentation of long delay trials (18.2% above vehicle). Task improvement was sustained during sessions run 24h after gabapentin administration. In a series that used a task-relevant distractor to determine gabapentin's effect on attention, drug treatment reversed distractor-impaired accuracy during long delay trials (25.4% above vehicle). The selective improvement in long delay accuracy in both paradigms suggests improvement in encoding or retention components of working memory. It is currently unclear whether the ability of acute administration of gabapentin to modestly improve working memory occurs by a mechanism that could be related to its anti-allodynic mechanism of action.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".