ArticleAmerican journal of cancer research2019
Ethical consideration and feasibility demonstration of high-intensity interval training without the use of electrical shocks in mice with and without doxorubicin exposition.
Article in American journal of cancer research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of 14 days Actovegin administration with or without high intensity training on exercise capacity and skeletal muscle mitochondrial respiration.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- Effect of acute high-intensity interval exercise on a mouse model of doxorubicin-induced cardiotoxicity: a pilot study.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Stimulation of soluble guanylate cyclase by vericiguat reduces skeletal muscle atrophy of mice following chemotherapy.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Daily running enhances molecular and physiological circadian rhythms in skeletal muscle.Molecular metabolism · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMost protocols intended to stimulate cardiovascular training in mice use electrical shocks that cause psychological stress and interfere with running performance. The aim of this study was to: 1) demonstrate the feasibility of a two-week high-intensity interval training (HIIT) program without the use of electric shocks in mice and 2) show that HIIT without electric shocks is feasible in the specific context of mice exposed to chemotherapy (i.e., doxorubicin).
methodsTen C57bl/6 6-week-old female mice underwent a maximal exercise capacity test before and after two weeks of HIIT (five sessions per week) to measure their maximum running speed. The electrical stimulus was substituted by gently lifting the hind legs of the training mice using a tongue depressor. A second sample of ten C57bl/6 10-week-old female mice receiving a single intravenous injection of 20 mg/kg of doxorubicin underwent a single session of HIIT post-DOX using the same gentle stimulation method.
resultsAfter two weeks of HIIT without the use of electric shocks, non-treated mice had a significant increase in their maximal speed (4.4 m•min
conclusionThe use of electric shocks was not required to obtain acceptable exercise compliance and a significant change in mice physical capacity. Our technique to perform a treadmill maximal exercise capacity test was shown to be feasible, even in specific pathological conditions like chemotherapy infusion, and could become a reference for future research protocols aimed at reducing the impact of psychological stress caused by electric shocks in mice. This model of exercise training in mice introduces an alternative to ethical conduct standards in animal research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31911864PMC6943355W3001788436What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.