Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 261

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Gender-related differences in the antinociceptive properties of morphine.

Cicero, T J, Nock, B, Meyer, E R·1996·The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics

Abstract

As part of an effort to examine gender-related differences in the abuse liability of morphine, the present parametric study was undertaken to systematically establish whether there are gender-related differences in the antinociceptive activity of morphine in rats. Our results showed that male rats were uniformly more sensitive to the antinociceptive properties of morphine than were females in three different assays, i.e., the hot-plate, tail-flick and abdominal-constriction tests. This enhanced sensitivity to morphine was reflected in the peak antinociceptive effect, the magnitude of antinociception (i.e., area under the time-action curve), the duration of the antinociceptive response and the 50% effective dose. These differences appear to reflect markedly enhanced central nervous system sensitivity to morphine in males, compared with females, because we observed no gender-linked differences in serum levels of morphine after its injection, at the time when peak antinociceptive effects were observed. Furthermore, these gender-related differences appear to be reflected in antinociception thought to be mediated by both spinal and supraspinal mechanisms. Finally, our results suggest that the acute effects of steroids play little role in the gender-related differences observed, because short-term castration did not alter the gender-related differences we observed. Rather, it appears more probable that the organizational effects of steroids during critical periods in development, which determine gender-related distinctions, may be significant in the male-female differences we have observed. In view of a great deal of largely anecdotal data for humans that suggest that there may be gender-related differences in the abuse liability of psychoactive substances, the model described in this paper may provide a means to examine this important issue.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0022-3565(25)21187-9

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 261

Metadata

Authors
Cicero, T. J., Nock, B., & Meyer, E. R.
Venue
The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1996-11
Volume
279
Issue
2
Pages
767-773
ISSN
0022-3565 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2215985723
Cited by
261
References
0
FWCI
8.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Gender-related differences in the antinociceptive properties of morphine. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0022-3565(25)21187-9
The paper
Cicero, T. J., Nock, B., & Meyer, E. R. (1996). Gender-related differences in the antinociceptive properties of morphine. The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3565(25)21187-9

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.