Effects of pre-treatment with amantadine on morphine induced antinociception during second phase formalin responses in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The clinically available NMDA-receptor antagonist drug, amantadine, has been shown to result in morphine sparing effects in humans after surgery. However, no data are available to describe the exact form of interaction. The present study aims to profile the possible effects of amantadine (0, 12.5, 25 or 50 mgkg(-1) i.p.) pre-treatment on morphine (0, 0.63, 1.25, 2.5 or 5 mgkg(-1) s.c.) induced antinociception in rats. The (automated) formalin test (5% formalin, 50 microl) was used to assess if amantadine enhances the antinociceptive activity of morphine. Possible motor impairment was assessed with a rotarod test. Morphine was measured in serum of amantadine or vehicle treated rats to search for possible pharmacokinetic interactions between amantadine and morphine. Isobolographic analysis provided evidence for a synergistic interaction between amantadine and morphine in the second phase of the formalin test. No evidence was found to indicate that amantadine induced motor impairment at the doses potentiating morphine during the second phase of the formalin test. There was no evidence for a pharmacokinetic interaction between amantadine and morphine. Since, the second phase of the formalin test is dependent on activation of the NMDA receptor system it is concluded that an antagonistic activity of amantadine at the NMDA receptor most likely contributes to the synergistic interaction observed between amantadine and morphine in rats.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".