Pain Perception and Anaesthesia in Research Frogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Frogs possess pain receptors and pathways that support processing and perception of noxious stimuli however the level of organization is less well structured compared to mammals. It was long believed that the experience of pain was limited to 'higher' phylums of the animal kingdom. However, it is now commonly accepted that amphibians possess neuro-anatomical pathways conductive of a complete nociceptive experience. Xenopus laevis frogs have been one of the most popular aquatic research models for developmental studies and genetic research. These frogs have been extensively use in research for their eggs, that can be collected following hormonal stimulation either naturally or by surgical intervention. Many anaesthetics have been used in amphibians such as bath solutions of MS-222, benzocaine and eugenol as well as systemic injections of ketamine or tiletamine, barbiturates, propofol and gas administrations of methoxyflurane, halothane and isoflurane. Most of these anaesthetic drugs produce variability in depth and duration of anaesthesia. MS-222 appears to be one of the most reliable anaesthetics. This review will focus on the evidence of pain perception in frogs and will compare the effectiveness and limitations of different anaesthetics used in Xenopus leavis frogs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".