Preliminary investigation of the thermal antinociceptive effects of codeine in cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential thermal antinociceptive effects of oral administration of a single dose of codeine in cats compared with positive (buprenorphine) and negative (saline 0.9%) controls. METHODS: Six adult healthy cats weighing 5.14 ± 0.6 kg were used. Skin temperature and thermal thresholds (TTs) were evaluated using a wireless device (Topcat Metrology) at baseline, 0.5, 1, 3, 6 and 10 h after treatment. In period 1, TTs were evaluated after subcutaneous administration of saline 0.9%. In period 2, cats were administered either oral codeine (10 mg total, 2.0 ± 0.2 mg/kg) or buccal buprenorphine (0.04 mg/kg) in a cross-over, blinded study design. Half of the volume of buprenorphine was administered into each cheek pouch. Δ TT (difference between TTs after and before treatment) was used for data comparison. Mean ± SD data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett's or Tukey's test when appropriate (P <0.05). RESULTS: Adverse effects did not occur in any group. Skin temperature was not different between groups nor over time. Temporal changes in TTs were not observed after saline or codeine. Buprenorphine increased Δ TT at 3 h (2.7 ± 3.3°C) when compared with baseline or saline (P <0.05). For buprenorphine, TTs were not >47.6°C at any time point in four cats. The mean highest temperature recorded in the two other cats in that group was 54.5 and 52.8°C at 3 h. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: At the dose administered, codeine did not produce thermal antinociception. Mild increases in TT after buccal buprenorphine might be related to the first-pass effect after drug swallowing, drug spillage during administration and/or individual variability. These factors should be taken in to consideration when administering buprenorphine by this route in the clinical setting.
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".