Intraperitoneal injection of sodium pentobarbital is associated with pain in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An effective and pain-free killing method is required to achieve the goal of euthanasia, a “good death”. Overdose of sodium pentobarbital (PB) by intraperitoneal (IP) injection is a widely accepted technique, but questions remain regarding pain associated with administration. As PB rapidly causes sedation and loss of consciousness, most studies have relied on indirect evidence of pain. The objective of this study was to assess pain associated with IP PB using an appropriate vehicle control. Adult male and female Sprague Dawley (SD) and female Wistar rats (N = 112) were block randomised by sex and strain to receive one of four treatments: 1) 800 mg/kg PB (pH 11); 2) 800 mg/kg PB with 4 mg/kg lidocaine (PB+lido); 3) saline or 4) vehicle controls (pH 11 or 12.5). Behavior (Rat Grimace Scale [RGS], writhing, back arching) was evaluated at baseline, before loss of righting reflex (PB and PB+lido groups), 80s, 151s and 10 min post-injection (PI; saline and vehicle control groups). In the vehicle control groups, the RGS scores were increased at 151s PI (SD: p = 0.0008, 95%CI −0.731 to −0.202) from baseline, as was relative frequency of writhing (SD: p < 0.00001; Wistar; p = 0.0004). RGS scores remained elevated 10 mins PI (SD: p = 0.0070, 95%CI −0.768 to −0.118; Wistar: p = 0.0236, 95%CI −0.907 to −0.0742) but the relative frequency of writhing did not (p > 0.05). The RGS scores and the relative frequency of writhing remained low in the PB, PB+lido and saline groups (p > 0.05). Back arching increased from baseline in the PB+lido group before loss of righting reflex and in the vehicle control group (SD rats) at 151s PI (p < 0.05). These results show that IP PB results in signs associated with pain. The sedative effects of PB limit behavioral assessment.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".