Intrahepatic Injection of Sodium Pentobarbital as an Alternative to Intraperitoneal Injection for the Euthanasia of Rats (<i>Rattus norvegicus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most commonly accepted method of rat euthanasia in North America is intraperitoneal injection of sodium pentobarbital (PB). However, misinjection can occur, and intraperitoneal PB may cause pain and distress. The objective of this study was to test an alternative method of euthanasia: intrahepatic injection of PB. A pilot study was conducted to develop a method of intrahepatic injections (evaluated using CT scans and test injections), followed by a full study comparing intraperitoneal (n= 14) and intrahepatic PB injections (n= 66) in adult rats. Full study outcomes were: 1) time from injection to loss of right- ing reflex (LORR), 2) time from injection to cessation of heartbeat (CHB), 3) number of failed euthanasia attempts, and 4) confirmation of successful intrahepatic injection or misinjection via necropsy. All injections were performed by a veterinary student. CT revealed that intrahepatic injections were feasible. Times (median [range]) to LORR and CHB were faster after successful intrahepatic injections (LORR, 3 s [1 to 5 s]; CHB, 8 s [2 to 242 s]) than after intraperitoneal injections (LORR, 89.5 s [73 to 110 s], CHB: 284.5 s [237 to 423 s]). The misinjection rate was higher with intrahepatic injections (59%) than with intraperitoneal injections (29%), but intrahepatic misinjection still resulted in fast and successful euthanasia (LORR, 29 s [1 to 96 s]; CHB, 216 s [12 to 330 s]), with the injectate distributed between the intraperitoneal and intrahepatic locations. The number of failed euthanasia attempts with intrahepatic injections was low (n=2). Intrahepatic injections show potential as an alternative to intraperitoneal injections for rat euthanasia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".