Evaluation of anti-obesity activity of duloxetine in comparison with sibutramine along with its anti-depressant activity: an experimental study in obese rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
5-HT and noradrenaline are important neurotransmitters that control increase in body mass and are involved in the pathophysiology of obesity and depression. Sibutramine, an established anti-obesity agent, and duloxetine, an anti-depressant agent, are serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). The objective of the present study was to compare the anti-obesity effect of duloxetine with sibutramine along with its effect on blood pressure and depression in obese rats. The secondary objective of the study was to determine if a relationship exists between obesity and depression. Obesity was induced by high-fat diet (HFD) in healthy male Sprague-Dawley rats. After 5 weeks of feeding HFD, animals were overweight (17.57%) with high food intake (57.15%) in comparison with normal animals. These obese animals were treated with duloxetine (30 mg x kg(-1), p.o.) and sibutramine (5 mg x kg(-1), p.o.) for 4 weeks. Control animals were treated with duloxetine alone (30 mg x kg(-1), p.o.). Our results depict that duloxetine was as effective as sibutramine in reducing food intake, body mass, and relative adiposity, and increasing rectal temperature with an added advantage of decreasing blood pressure, which sibutramine failed to do. Besides reduction in body mass, unlike sibutramine, duloxetine improved depressive state as evaluated by despair swimming test, tail suspension test, and open field test, speculating its use as an anti-obesity agent in obese-depressive animals. Since obese control animals reflected decreased locomotor activity, a positive relationship can be speculated to exist between obesity and depression. Further studies on various antidepressant models are required to confirm this relationship.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".