MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044452432 · doi:10.3389/fvets.2020.00411

Welfare Impact of Carbon Dioxide Euthanasia on Laboratory Mice and Rats: A Systematic Review

2020· review· en· W3044452432 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Veterinary Science · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal testing and alternatives
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsAnimal welfareConfusionMedicineMEDLINEWelfareAdverse effectFamily medicinePsychologyIntensive care medicinePsychiatryInternal medicineBiologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: There has been increased concern about the suitability of CO2 as a method for euthanasia of laboratory mice and rats, including the potential discomfort, pain or distress that animals may experience prior to loss of consciousness; time to loss of consciousness; best methods for use of CO2; and the availability of better alternatives. These discussions have been useful in providing new information, but have resulted in significant confusion regarding the acceptability of CO2 for rodent euthanasia. In some cases, researchers and veterinarians have become uncertain as to which techniques to recommend or use for euthanasia of laboratory mice and rats. Methods: The International Association of Colleges of Laboratory Animal Medicine (IACLAM) convened a taskforce to examine the evidence for adverse welfare indicators in laboratory rats and mice undergoing CO2 euthanasia using a SYRCLE-registered systematic review protocol. Of 3772 papers identified through a database search (PubMed, Web of Science, CAB Direct, Agricola, and grey literature) from 1900 to 2017, 37 studies were identified for detailed review (some including more than one species or age group), including 15 in adult mice, 21 in adult rats, and 5 in neonates of both species. Experiments or reports were excluded if they only assessed parameters other than those directly affecting animal welfare during CO2 induction and/or euthanasia. Results: Study design and outcome measures were highly variable and there was an unclear to high risk of bias in many of the published studies. Changes in the outcome measures evaluated were inconsistent or poorly differentiated. It is likely that repeated exposures to carbon dioxide inhalation are aversive to adult rats and mice, based on avoidance behavior studies; however, this effect is largely indistinguishable from aversion induced by repeated exposures to other inhalant anesthetic gasses. Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence to permit an unbiased assessment of the effect of CO2 inhalation during euthanasia on welfare indicators in laboratory mice and rats. Additional well-designed, unbiased, and adequately powered studies are needed to accurately assess the welfare of laboratory mice and rats undergoing euthanasia via CO2 gas.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.137
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it