A Comparison of Brain-State Dynamics across Common Anesthetic Agents in Male Sprague-Dawley Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anesthesia is a powerful tool in neuroscientific research, especially in sleep research where it has the experimental advantage of allowing surgical interventions that are ethically problematic in natural sleep. Yet, while it is well documented that different anesthetic agents produce a variety of brain states, and consequently have differential effects on a multitude of neurophysiological factors, these outcomes vary based on dosages, the animal species used, and the pharmacological mechanisms specific to each anesthetic agent. Thus, our aim was to conduct a controlled comparison of spontaneous electrophysiological dynamics at a surgical plane of anesthesia under six common research anesthetics using a ubiquitous animal model, the Sprague-Dawley rat. From this direct comparison, we also evaluated which anesthetic agents may serve as pharmacological proxies for the electrophysiological features and dynamics of unconscious states such as sleep and coma. We found that at a surgical plane, pentobarbital, isoflurane and propofol all produced a continuous pattern of burst-suppression activity, which is a neurophysiological state characteristically observed during coma. In contrast, ketamine-xylazine produced synchronized, slow-oscillatory activity, similar to that observed during slow-wave sleep. Notably, both urethane and chloral hydrate produced the spontaneous, cyclical alternations between forebrain activation (REM-like) and deactivation (non-REM-like) that are similar to those observed during natural sleep. Thus, choice of anesthesia, in conjunction with continuous brain state monitoring, are critical considerations in order to avoid brain-state confounds when conducting neurophysiological experiments.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".