Antinociceptive effect of N-acetyl glucosamine in a rat model of neuropathic pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study was aimed at evaluating the efficacy of glucosamine and potential mechanisms of actions in a neuropathic pain model in rats. METHODS: Glucosamine (500, 1000 and 2000 mg/kg) was administered via gavage route, 1 day before the chronic constriction injury (CCI) of sciatic nerve and daily for 14 days (prophylactic regimen), or from days 5 to 14 post-injury (therapeutic regimen), as the indicators of neuropathic pain, mechanical allodynia, cold allodynia and thermal hyperalgesia were assessed on days 0, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 14 after ligation. Inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) and tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) gene expressions were measured by real-time polymerase chain reaction. TNF-α protein content was measured using the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay method. RESULTS: Three days after nerve injury, the threshold of pain was declined among animals subjected to neuropathic pain. Mechanical and cold allodynia, as well as thermal hyperalgesia were attenuated by glucosamine (500, 1000, 2000 mg/kg) in the prophylactic regimen. However, existing pain was not decreased by this drug. Increased mRNA expression of iNOS and TNF-α was significantly reduced in the spinal cord of CCI animals by glucosamine (500, 1000, 2000 mg/kg) in the prophylactic regimen. The overall expression of spinal TNF-α was increased by CCI, but this increase was reduced in animals receiving glucosamine prophylactic treatment. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that glucosamine as a safe supplement may be a useful candidate in preventing neuropathic pain following nerve injury. Antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects may be at least in part responsible for the antinociceptive effects of this drug.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".