Use of a shuttle box model to assess the behavioral and analgesic effects of opioid injections in goldfish (Carassius auratus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if opioid-induced behavioral effects, such as sedation, can be detected using a shuttle box experimental apparatus and whether thermal preference following noxious stimulation using mustard oil is reversed by morphine administration in fish. METHODS: 5 goldfish (Carassius auratus) underwent 2 randomized blinded experimental trials, with a crossover study design. First, opioid effects were tested in a shuttle box without painful stimulus. Fish were injected 5 days apart with butorphanol at 0.4 or 10 mg/kg, morphine at 5 or 10 mg/kg, or saline IM. After 30 minutes, each fish was placed in a shuttle box for 2 hours with a temperature gradient of 26 to 28 °C. Temperature preference, time spent immobile, and swimming velocity were assessed. The second trial consisted of cutaneous noxious stimulation using mustard oil immersion for 5 minutes followed by an assessment of thermal preference for 4 minutes in the shuttle box after either morphine at 10 mg/kg or saline IM injections. Linear mixed models were used to compare treatment groups. RESULTS: Before noxious stimulation, a low dose of morphine caused sedation compared with control group and high-dose morphine and butorphanol treatments. Immersion in mustard oil caused fish to spend more time in the cold area in the control group. Morphine administration reversed this pattern. CONCLUSIONS: The sedative and analgesic effects of opioids were detected through this model. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The shuttle box model could be used to assess the analgesic effects of other opioids in goldfish while reducing biases associated with the sedative and stimulatory effects of these drugs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".