Mouse aversion to induction with isoflurane using the drop method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Isoflurane anesthesia prior to carbon dioxide euthanasia is recognized as a refinement by many guidelines. Facilities lacking access to a vaporizer can use the “drop” method, whereby liquid anesthetic is introduced into an induction chamber. Knowing the least aversive concentration of isoflurane is critical. Previous work has demonstrated that isoflurane administered with the drop method at a concentration of 5% is aversive to mice. Other work has shown that lower concentrations (1.7% to 3.7%) of isoflurane can be used to anesthetize mice with the drop method, but aversion to these concentrations has not been tested. We assessed aversion to these lower isoflurane concentrations administered with the drop method, using a conditioned place aversion (CPA) paradigm. Female C57BL/6J (OT-1) mice ( n = 28) were randomly allocated to one of three isoflurane concentrations: 1.7%, 2.7%, and 3.7%. Mice were acclimated to a light–dark apparatus. Prior to and following dark (+ isoflurane) and light chamber conditioning sessions, mice underwent an initial and final preference assessment; the change in the duration spent within the dark chamber between the initial and final preference tests was used to calculate a CPA score. Aversion increased with increasing isoflurane concentration: from 1.7% to 2.7% to 3.7% isoflurane, mean ± SE CPA score decreased from 19.6 ± 20.1 s to –25.6 ± 23.2 s, to –116.9 ± 30.6 s ( F 1,54 = 15.4, p < 0.001). Our results suggest that, when using the drop method to administer isoflurane, concentrations between 1.7% and 2.7% can be used to minimize female mouse aversion to induction.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.006 |
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".