Motor axon excitability measures in the rat tail are the same awake or anaesthetized using sodium pentobarbital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Nerve excitability tests in sciatic motor axons are sensitive to anaesthetic choice. Results using ketamine/xylazine (KX) are different from those using sodium pentobarbital (SP). It is not clear which results are most similar to the awake condition, though results using SP appear more similar to human results. Methods Nerve excitability in tail motor axons was tested in 8 adult female rats with a chronic sacral spinal cord injury. These animals have no behavioural response to electrical stimulation of the tail and were tested awake and then anaesthetized using SP. Results The nerve excitability test results in the awake condition were indistinguishable from the results when the same rats were anaesthetized with sodium pentobarbital. Summary plots of the test results overlap within the boundaries of the standard error and paired t-tests on the 42 discrete measures generated by nerve excitability testing yielded no significant differences (after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons). Conclusions Nerve excitability test results in rat motor axons are the same whether the animals are awake or anesthetized using sodium pentobarbital.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".