Effect of pneumoperitoneum on gastrointestinal motility, pain behaviors, and stress biomarkers in guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare stress markers, gastrointestinal motility, and behavioral indicators of pain between guinea pigs undergoing pneumoperitoneum with carbon dioxide (CO2) and control guinea pigs. ANIMALS: Fourteen 4- to 5-month-old intact female Hartley guinea pigs. PROCEDURES: Guinea pigs were randomized to receive insufflation or serve as controls (anesthesia and abdominal catheter placement without insufflation), with 7 animals/group. Insufflated animals underwent 6 mm Hg of CO2 pneumoperitoneum for 30 minutes. Afterward, results for vital signs, blood glucose, fecal cortisol, appetite, fecal output, and behaviors (via video recording) were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: There was no difference between groups and over time for body temperature, heart rate, fecal output in grams, pellets consumed, blood glucose, and fecal cortisol. Guinea pigs that underwent insufflation had significantly more fecal pellets at 36 hours after the procedure. Several behaviors were expressed similarly between groups and over time, such as body turns, incomplete movement, rearing, lying down, drinking, and hiding. Coprophagy occurred less often in the insufflated versus noninsufflated group at 12 h postprocedure but was similar between groups at other time points. At 60 hours after the procedure, insufflated animals spent less time squinting compared to noninsufflated animals. Other behaviors were differentially expressed over time but not between treatments. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Overall, there were no major differences in appetite, stress markers, and behaviors between insufflated and control guinea pigs. CO2 insufflation did not appear to cause undue pain or stress in guinea pigs and may be a reasonable technique to use during laparoscopy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".