MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883873529 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000003593

Repeated Testing With the Hypertonic Saline Assay in Mice for Screening of Analgesic Activity

2018· article· en· W2883873529 on OpenAlexaff
Yahya I. Asiri, Timothy Fung, Stephan Schwarz, Alasdair M. Barr, E. Puil, Bernard A. MacLeod

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalBC Children's HospitalProvidence Health CareUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNociceptionSalineHypertonic salineMorphineAnesthesiaAnalgesicIn vivoHindlimbNociceptorPharmacologyInternal medicineReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In vivo animal assays are a cornerstone of preclinical pain research. An optimal stimulus for determining the activity of potential analgesics would produce responses of a consistent magnitude on repeated testing. Intraplantar (i.pl.) injection of hypertonic saline (HS) in mice produces robust nociceptive responses to different analgesics, without evidence of tissue damage. Here, we investigated whether the nociceptive response is changed by repeating the injection at different times and sites in a mouse and whether it is attenuated by morphine. METHODS: We conducted randomized and blinded experiments to assess responses to repeated i.pl. 10% HS in female CD-1 mice. An injection of HS was followed by a second injection into the same hind paw at 4 hours, 24 hours, or 7 days. A separate group of mice each received i.pl. injections at 5, 10, and 15 days. In 2 independent experiments, 30 minutes after initial HS injections in the ipsilateral hind paw, mice received HS injection into the contralateral hind paw or ipsilateral forepaw. The ability of morphine to block the nociceptive responses was examined by injecting morphine at 5-day intervals. RESULTS: Repeated injection of HS did not alter the responses at 4 hours (84 vs 75 seconds; mean difference [95% CI], -9 [-40 to 23]; P = .6), 24 hours (122 vs 113 seconds; -6 [-24 to 12]; P = .5), or 7 days (112 vs 113 seconds; -0.3 [-12 to 11]; P = .95) or at multiple injections (day 0, 122 seconds vs day 5, 121 seconds; -0.3 [-28 to 27], P > .99; day 10, 118 seconds; 2.5 [-36 to 41], P = .99; day 15, 119 seconds; 2 [-36 to 38], P = .99). A previous hind paw injection did not change the responses of the contralateral hind paw (right, 93 seconds versus left, 96 seconds; -3 [-20 to 13], P = .7) or of the ipsilateral forepaw (forepaw after HS, 146 seconds versus forepaw after 0.9% saline, 149 seconds; -3 [-28 to 22], P = .8). Morphine dose-dependently attenuated HS responses (control, 94 seconds vs 4 mg/kg, 66 seconds; 29 [-7 to 64], P = .12; vs 10 mg/kg, 27 seconds; 67 [44-90], P < .0001; 4 vs 10 mg/kg, 67 [44-90], P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: The repetition of i.pl. HS produces consistent reproducible responses without tissue damage. This results in efficient, rapid detection of analgesic activity, reducing the number of animals required.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicVeterinary Pharmacology and AnesthesiaFrench-language works237,207