Evaluating analgesic efficacy and administration route following craniotomy in mice using the grimace scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most research laboratories abide by guidelines and mandates set by their research institution regarding the administration of analgesics to control pain during the postoperative period. Unfortunately, measuring pain originating from the head is difficult, making adequate decisions regarding pain control following stereotaxic surgery problematic. In addition, most postsurgical analgesia protocols require multiple injections over several days, which may cause stress and distress during a critical recovery period. Here we sought to (1) assess the degree of postoperative pain following craniotomy in mice, (2) compare the efficacy of three common rodent analgesics (carprofen, meloxicam and buprenorphine) for reducing this pain and (3) determine whether the route of administration (injected or self-administered through the drinking supply) influenced pain relief post-craniotomy. Using the mouse grimace scale (MGS), we found that injectable analgesics were significantly more effective at relieving post-craniotomy pain, however, both routes of administration decreased pain scores in the first 24 h postsurgery. Specifically, buprenorphine administered independently of administration route was the most effective at reducing MGS scores, however, female mice showed greater sensitivity to carprofen when administered through the water supply. Although it is necessary to provide laboratory animals with analgesics after an invasive procedure, there remains a gap in the literature regarding the degree of craniotomy-related pain in rodents and the efficacy of alternative routes of administration. Our study highlights the limitations of administering drugs through the drinking supply, even at doses that are considered to be higher than those currently recommended by most research institutions for treating pain of mild to moderate severity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".