Evaluation of EMLA Cream for Preventing Pain during Tattooing of Rabbits: Changes in Physiological, Behavioural and Facial Expression Responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ear tattooing is a routine procedure performed on laboratory, commercial and companion rabbits for the purpose of identification. Although this procedure is potentially painful, it is usually performed without the provision of analgesia, so compromising animal welfare. Furthermore, current means to assess pain in rabbits are poor and more reliable methods are required. The objectives of this study were to assess the physiological and behavioural effects of ear tattooing on rabbits, evaluate the analgesic efficacy of topical local anaesthetic cream application prior to this procedure, and to develop a scale to assess pain in rabbits based on changes in facial expression. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In a crossover study, eight New Zealand White rabbits each underwent four different treatments of actual or sham ear tattooing, with and without prior application of a topical local anaesthetic (lidocaine/prilocaine). Changes in immediate behaviour, heart rate, arterial blood pressure, serum corticosterone concentrations, facial expression and home pen behaviours were assessed. Changes in facial expression were examined to develop the Rabbit Grimace Scale in order to assess acute pain. Tattooing without EMLA cream resulted in significantly greater struggling behaviour and vocalisation, greater facial expression scores of pain, higher peak heart rate, as well as higher systolic and mean arterial blood pressure compared to all other treatments. Physiological and behavioural changes following tattooing with EMLA cream were similar to those in animals receiving sham tattoos with or without EMLA cream. Behavioural changes 1 hour post-treatment were minimal with no pain behaviours identifiable in any group. Serum corticosterone responses did not differ between sham and tattoo treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Ear tattooing causes transient and potentially severe pain in rabbits, which is almost completely prevented by prior application of local anaesthetic cream. The Rabbit Grimace Scale developed appears to be a reliable and accurate way to assess acute pain in rabbits.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".