Comparative Study on Electric Fish Handling Gloves and Immersion Anesthesia for the Surgical Implantation of Transmitters in Brook Trout
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although the use of electric fish handling gloves (EFHGs) has been advocated as a no-residue alternative to chemical immobilization for field studies, the impact of their use on fish welfare remains uncertain for surgical procedures. The effects of EFHGs (10–16 mV), with and without local infiltration of lidocaine (6 mg/kg), on stress and muscle integrity after the surgical implantation of an intracoelomic transmitter in adult Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis were compared to the effects of two immersion anesthetics (buffered tricaine methanesulfonate at 60 mg/L and eugenol at 40 mg/L) using blood markers. Lower plane of anesthesia and inconsistent immobilization made surgeries with EFHGs more challenging to perform than surgeries conducted using immersion anesthesia. Plasma cortisol and lactate levels were significantly higher at 1–2 h postprocedure than at the end of the surgery (time 0) for all experimental groups (+210% and +121%, respectively), but no significant differences were detected for the magnitude of these increases between groups. Plasma creatine kinase concentrations significantly increased at 2 h postprocedure for the EFHG treatment groups (+206%), whereas they significantly decreased over the same period for the immersion anesthesia groups (−89%). Residues of lidocaine were not detected in fillets, suggesting the absence of significant systemic diffusion. This study suggests that the use of EFHGs for intracoelomic surgical procedures in Brook Trout induces higher disturbances to muscular physiology compared to immersion anesthesia. Differences in the level of stress, muscular anaerobic activity, or oxidative stress were not documented. Further research is needed to evaluate the analgesic properties of EFHGs and local infiltration with lidocaine.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".