Long Term Physiologic and Behavioural Effects of Housing Density and Environmental Resource Provision for Adult Male and Female Sprague Dawley Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is considerable interest in refining laboratory rodent environments to promote animal well-being, as well as research reproducibility. Few studies have evaluated the long term impact of enhancing rodent environments with resources and additional cagemates. To that end, male and female Sprague Dawley (SD) rats were housed singly (n = 8/sex), in pairs (n = 16/sex), or in groups of four (n = 16/sex) for five months. Single and paired rats were housed in standard cages with a nylon chew toy, while group-housed rats were kept in double-wide cages with two PVC shelters and a nylon chew toy and were provided with food enrichment three times weekly. Animal behaviour, tests of anxiety (open field, elevated plus maze, and thermal nociception), and aspects of animal physiology (fecal corticoid levels, body weight, weekly food consumption, organ weights, and cerebral stress signaling peptide and receptor mRNA levels) were measured. Significant differences were noted, primarily in behavioural data, with sustained positive social interactions and engagement with environmental resources noted throughout the study. These results suggest that modest enhancements in the environment of both male and female SD rats may be beneficial to their well-being, while introducing minimal variation in other aspects of behavioural or physiologic responses.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".