Ethical consideration and feasibility demonstration of high-intensity interval training without the use of electrical shocks in mice with and without doxorubicin exposition.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Most protocols intended to stimulate cardiovascular training in mice use electrical shocks that cause psychological stress and interfere with running performance. The aim of this study was to: 1) demonstrate the feasibility of a two-week high-intensity interval training (HIIT) program without the use of electric shocks in mice and 2) show that HIIT without electric shocks is feasible in the specific context of mice exposed to chemotherapy (i.e., doxorubicin). METHODS: Ten C57bl/6 6-week-old female mice underwent a maximal exercise capacity test before and after two weeks of HIIT (five sessions per week) to measure their maximum running speed. The electrical stimulus was substituted by gently lifting the hind legs of the training mice using a tongue depressor. A second sample of ten C57bl/6 10-week-old female mice receiving a single intravenous injection of 20 mg/kg of doxorubicin underwent a single session of HIIT post-DOX using the same gentle stimulation method. RESULTS: ; P = 0.019). In DOX-treated mice, the compliance rate to run went from 100% during the acclimation period prior to doxorubicin treatment to 100% when HIIT was performed after the DOX treatment. Doxorubicin treatment seemed to affect exercise compliance in DOX-treated mice. Our study demonstrated that a two-week HIIT program in non-treated mice and a single HIIT session in DOX-treated mice are feasible. CONCLUSION: The use of electric shocks was not required to obtain acceptable exercise compliance and a significant change in mice physical capacity. Our technique to perform a treadmill maximal exercise capacity test was shown to be feasible, even in specific pathological conditions like chemotherapy infusion, and could become a reference for future research protocols aimed at reducing the impact of psychological stress caused by electric shocks in mice. This model of exercise training in mice introduces an alternative to ethical conduct standards in animal research.
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 | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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".