The effect of carbon dioxide flow rate on the euthanasia of laboratory mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laboratory rodents are commonly euthanized by exposure to gradually increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2). Current recommended flow rates range between 10 and 30% chamber vol/min and result in insensibility before exposure to painful concentrations (<40%). However, this method causes dyspnea, indicated by deep, rapid breathing. In humans dyspnea is associated with a negative affective experience. Sensations of dyspnea may explain why rodents find CO2 concentrations >3% aversive. This study aimed to assess the effect of CO2 flow rates on time between the onset of dyspnea and various measures of insensibility (recumbency, loss of the righting reflex and loss of the pedal withdrawal reflex) to identify flow rates that minimize the potential experience of dyspnea. The results of this study indicate that a flow rate of 50% chamber vol/min, while holding the CO2 cage concentration just below 40%, minimizes the interval between the onset of labored breathing and recumbency. Using a 50% flow rate this interval averaged (± SE) 30.3 ± 2.9 s versus 49.7 ± 2.9 s at 20% chamber vol/min (F3,22 = 7.83, P = 0.0013). Similarly, the interval between the onset of labored breathing and loss of the righting reflex averaged 38.2 ± 2.4 s at a flow rate of 50% versus 59.2 ± 2.4 s at 20% chamber vol/min of CO2 (F3,22 = 13.62, P < 0.0001). We conclude that higher flow rates reduce the duration of dyspnea, but even at the highest flow rate mice experience more than 30 s between the onset of dyspnea and the most conservative estimate of insensibility.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".