MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081603917 · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(01)00291-3

Antinociception by tricyclic antidepressants in the rat formalin test: differential effects on different behaviours following systemic and spinal administration

2001· article· en· W2081603917 on OpenAlexaff
Jana Sawynok, Allison Reid

Bibliographic record

VenuePain · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTricyclicSystemic administrationMedicinePharmacologyDifferential effectsAnesthesiaInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study (1) examined analgesic effects of systemically and spinally administered antidepressants (ADs) on phase 2 flinching and biting/licking behaviours in the rat formalin test, a model considered to be of greater relevance to clinical pain than acute threshold tests, and (2) determined whether motor or anti-inflammatory effects contributed to such actions. Systemic administration of amitriptyline (3-20 mg/kg) produced a dose-related enhancement of flinching behaviours, while at the same time suppressing biting/licking behaviours. Imipramine (except for 20 mg/kg), nortriptyline, desipramine and fluoxetine had no significant effect on flinching behaviours, while producing a dose-related suppression of biting/licking behaviours. When administered spinally, either by acute lumbar puncture or via chronically implanted intrathecal cannulas, amitriptyline similarly augmented flinching behaviours. When given by lumbar puncture, amitriptyline suppressed biting/licking behaviours, but when intrathecal cannulas were used, this behaviour was not expressed in the formalin group. Other ADs also suppressed biting/licking behaviours without affecting flinching when given by lumbar puncture. Effects on paw volume were determined at the end of behavioural testing. Systemic administration of all ADs produced a dose-related reduction in paw volume. Spinal administration of nortriptyline by lumbar puncture also reduced paw volume, but for other agents, the reduction was not significant. Motor effects were noted qualitatively throughout these experiments, and considered in relation to nociceptive behaviours. These results indicate (a) a marked dissociation between the effects of systemic ADs on flinching and biting/licking behaviours in the formalin test, (b) spinal efficacy of ADs that essentially reproduces effects seen with systemic administration when given by lumbar puncture, (c) a lack of causality between anti-inflammatory effects of ADs and their analgesic properties in the formalin test, and (d) a contribution of motor effects to analgesic actions at higher doses affecting biting/licking but not flinching behaviours.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations55
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePainSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207