Aversion to Desflurane and Isoflurane in Sprague-Dawley Rats (Rattus norvegicus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carbon dioxide and isoflurane are widely used for killing rats, yet may not truly achieve “euthanasia”, because they elicit aversion. The inhalant anesthetic desflurane is faster acting than isoflurane, representing a potential refinement. Using an aversion-avoidance paradigm, 24 rats were exposed to isoflurane or desflurane (n = 12 per group) at initial exposure. Fourteen rats were then re-exposed to isoflurane or desflurane (n = 7 per group), after a 7 days washout period. Initial exposure: time to recumbency was faster for desflurane than isoflurane (p = 0.0008, 95% CI [-12.9 to 32.6 s]), with 9/12 and 6/12 rats becoming recumbent, respectively. At initial exposure, there was no difference between groups in time to withdrawal (p = 0.714). At re-exposure, all rats withdrew and no rats became recumbent. Time to withdrawal at re-exposure did not differ between treatment groups (p = 0.083). Compared to initial exposure, time to withdrawal during re-exposure was similar for isoflurane (p = 0.228) and faster with desflurane (p = 0.012, 95% CI [19.1 to 49.5 s]). Isoflurane and desflurane are similarly aversive, with aversion increasing at re-exposure. The shorter time from exposure to recumbency with desflurane indicates that any distress is of a shorter duration when compared with isoflurane.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
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 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".