Peripheral Antihyperalgesic and Analgesic Actions of Ketamine and Amitriptyline in a Model of Mild Thermal Injury in the Rat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: In this study, we examined antihyperalgesic and analgesic actions after local peripheral administration of ketamine and amitriptyline in a rat model of mild thermal injury. Exposure of the hindpaw to 52 degrees C for 45 s under anesthesia produced a subsequent thermal hyperalgesia lasting at least 2 h. The local peripheral administration of ketamine (100-1000 nmol) 15 min before the thermal injury produced an antihyperalgesic effect when injected into the ipsilateral paw, whereas amitriptyline produced both antihyperalgesic (300 nmol) and analgesic (1000 nmol) effects. Administered after the thermal injury, ketamine had no effect, whereas amitriptyline retained its analgesic but not its antihyperalgesic effect. Amitriptyline (300 and 1000 nmol) produced an analgesic action when administered into the normal nonsensitized hindpaw. Both drugs increase paw volume, particularly at larger doses; biogenic amines are not involved in the action of amitriptyline, as was shown previously for ketamine. These results indicate that (a) ketamine produces antihyperalgesia, but not analgesia, when administered locally with a mild thermal injury model; (b) amitriptyline produces both antihyperalgesia and analgesia when administered locally; and (c) the increase in paw volume produced by these drugs occurs by different mechanisms. IMPLICATIONS: This study examines the pain-relieving properties of the local peripheral administration of ketamine and amitriptyline, two drugs in current clinical use, in a thermal injury model of hyperalgesia and demonstrates both antihyperalgesic and analgesic properties. These observations provide support for their potential use as local (e.g., topical) analgesics.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".