Marked for life? Effects of early cage‐cleaning frequency, delivery batch, and identification tail‐marking on rat anxiety profiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Daily handling of preweanling rats reduces their adult anxiety. Even routine cage-cleaning, involving handling, reduces adult anxiety compared with controls. Cage-cleaning regimes differ between animal breeders, potentially affecting rodent anxiety and experimental results. Here, 92 adult male rats given different cage-cleaning rates as pups, were compared on plus-maze, hyponeophagia, corticosterone, and handling tests. They were pair-housed and half were tail-marked for identification. Anxiety/stress profiles were unaffected by cage-cleaning frequency, suggesting that commercial-typical differences in husbandry contribute little variance to adult rat behavior. However, delivery batch affected some elevated plus-maze measures. Also, tail-marked rats spent three times longer on the plus-maze open arms than their unmarked cagemates, suggesting reduced anxiety, yet paradoxically they showed greater chromodacryorrhoea responses to handling, implying increased aversion to human contact. A follow-up study showed that rats avoided the odor released from the marker pen used. Thus, apparently trivial aspects of procedure can greatly affect experimental results.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".