Analgesia additive interaction between tadalafil and morphine in an experimental animal model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since both morphine and tadalafil have been proven to exert some of their analgesic activity through modulation of the NO–cGMP pathway, the aim of the current study is to evaluate the pharmacologic interaction between tadalafil and morphine to decrease the dose of morphine and subsequently its side effects. The assessment was carried out through isobolographic analysis relative to ED50s of both morphine and tadalafil obtained by tail-flick test on BALB/c mice. Morphine and tadalafil ED50s calculated from the dose–response curves were 8303 and 2080 μg/kg, respectively. The experimental ED50 values of morphine and tadalafil in their mixture were 4800 and 1210 μg/kg, respectively. Those results showed an additive interaction between morphine and tadalafil presented by a total fraction value for the mixture of 1160 μg/kg. This outcome can be interpreted by the fact that both drugs share common pathways, namely, NO–cGMP and opioid receptors. As a conclusion, the morphine and tadalafil combination showed an additive effect against acute pain, which is mediated through the central nervous system, thus providing a rationale for combining them to decrease morphine dose and thus minimizing its side effects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".