Antinociception by tricyclic antidepressants in the rat formalin test: differential effects on different behaviours following systemic and spinal administration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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) | 0.001 | 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".