Single oral dose of gabapentin reduces vigilance and increases play behavior without changing mobility in New Zealand white rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate rabbit behavioral responses and activity after gabapentin administration. METHODS: In this study, 5 intact female and 3 intact male New Zealand white rabbits aged 8 to 12 months were administered a single oral 25-mg/kg dose of gabapentin. This study was conducted from December 2020 to February 2021. Effects on individual behavior, posture, and motor activity were evaluated with ANY-maze software (video tracking system) and ethograms. Rabbits were assessed 2 hours after gabapentin administration. Rabbits were acclimated to the assessment pen for 3 days prior to testing, and baseline measurements (control) were assessed 1 day prior to the first gabapentin administration. Treatment was performed 3 times daily, with each rabbit given gabapentin once a day for morning, midday, and late afternoon doses. Treatments were repeated with a 1-week interval period in between until all rabbits had received dosing at all 3 time periods. Data were analyzed as continuous with a linear mixed model. RESULTS: There was a significant increase in frolicking behavior and significant decrease in observing behavior between baseline and after gabapentin administration. There was no significant change in other rabbit behaviors, postures, or motor patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicated that oral gabapentin at 25 mg/kg increased play (frolicking) and decreased vigilance (observing) behaviors without significantly affecting motor patterns, suggesting that this dose reduced stress-associated behaviors without causing excessive sedation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Oral gabapentin appears to reduce fear and anxiety in rabbits in a controlled environment. This shows promise for its ability to reduce stress with veterinary visits, transport, and other stressful events.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".