Evaluating Intrahepatic and Intraperitoneal Sodium Pentobarbital or Ethanol for Mouse Euthanasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intraperitoneal (IP) injection of sodium pentobarbital (PB) is an accepted method of euthanasia for mice. However, this method has important drawbacks, including the potential for pain or misinjection. The objective of this prospective, randomized, blinded study was to determine whether intrahepatic (IH) injection of PB is more effective than IP delivery for mouse euthanasia. Secondary objectives were to: 1) determine whether IP ethanol (ET) is a suitable alternative to PB and 2) study the effect of isoflurane anesthesia on euthanasia with either PB or ET. Eighty adult CD1 mice were randomly assigned to 6 different treatment groups, were euthanized by using IP or IH injections of either PB or ET, and were either anesthetized or conscious before injection. Variables of interest were: 1) misinjection rates (based on necropsy evaluation), 2) time from injection to apnea and 3) time to cessation of heartbeat (CHB). The misinjection rate for IH injections was 93% (28/30). Two successful IH injections resulted in death within 4 s, but this method cannot be recommended due to the possibility for intrathoracic injection ( n = 4). In nonanesthetized mice, time to apnea and CHB was significantly shorter with IP ET (apnea: 72.5 s [median], CHB: 115 s) than with IP PB (apnea: 136 s, CHB: 176 s). Anesthesia at time of injection was associated with a shorter CHB time for IP PB. These data show the difficulty in achieving successful IH injections in mice, but confirm that IP ET is a viable and potentially superior alternative to IP PB. Lastly, anesthesia can shorten time to death after IP injection of PB.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".