A Local Analgesic, Lidocaine, Did Not Affect Short‐Term Welfare during Electroanesthesia of a Teleost Fish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In recent decades, fisheries research has benefited from the use of various forms of electroimmobilization to facilitate fish handling through rapid induction and recovery times, capacity to allow immediate release, and other advantages not shared by pharmaceuticals. However, as electroimmobilization becomes increasingly prevalent, it is expected that animal care committees may require electroimmobilized fish to also receive chemical anesthetics or analgesics. We experimentally investigated whether the administration of lidocaine (a local analgesic at ~ 1 mg/kg body mass) to electroanesthetized fish resulted in any welfare‐relevant differences in the behavior and physiology of Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides during and after standardized intracoelomic tag implantation surgeries relative to a group that received a saline sham. We also used multiple control treatments to examine potential behavioral and physiological effects of handling, electroanesthesia, surgery, and the drug administration process. We quantified voluntary movements on the surgery table, ventilation rates after surgery, reflexes, and emergence/exploration in a behavioral arena. Primary and secondary stress biomarkers also were used to evaluate physiological stress over a 2‐h period postsurgery. The administration of lidocaine at the tested dose did not facilitate fish handling during surgery and did not affect changes in the physiological stress response relative to the saline control. Swimming activity postsurgery was lower in fish treated with lidocaine; however, other differences in behavior were negligible. Electroanesthesia alone was able to sufficiently facilitate the surgical procedures by limiting voluntary escape attempts without significantly exacerbating physiological stress from handling. There does not appear to be any advantage to adding lidocaine to the protocol.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".