Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33481851›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Individual differences in rat sensitivity to CO2.

Lucía Améndola, Anna Ratuski, Daniel M Weary

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Associations of COPhysiology & behavior · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lucía AméndolaAnimal Welfare Program, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0743-5117
Anna RatuskiAnimal Welfare Program, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Daniel M WearyAnimal Welfare Program, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0917-3982
University of British Columbia · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Feelings of fear, anxiety, dyspnea and panic when inhaling carbon dioxide (CO2) are variable among humans, in part due to differences in CO2 sensitivity. Rat aversion to CO2 consistently varies between individuals; this variation in aversion may reflect CO2 sensitivity, but other personality traits could also account for individual differences in aversion. The aims of this study were to 1) assess the stability of individual differences in rat aversion to CO2, 2) determine if individual differences in sweet reward motivation are associated with variation in aversion to CO2, and 3) assess whether variation in aversion to CO2 is related to individual differences in motivation to approach gains (promotion focus) or maintain safety (prevention focus). Twelve female Sprague Dawley rats were exposed multiple times at three different ages (3, 9 and 16 months old) to CO2 in approach-avoidance testing to assess motivation to avoid CO2 against motivation to gain sweet rewards. Rats were also tested for motivation to find hidden sweet rewards, and for their motivation to approach rewards or darkness. Tolerance to CO2 increased with repeated exposures and was higher at older ages. Individual differences in aversion to CO2 were highly repeatable but unrelated to motivation for sweet rewards or the strength of promotion and prevention focus. These results indicate that individual differences in aversion to CO2 reflect variation in CO2 sensitivity.

Indexed as

IndividualityAnimalsAnxietyBehavior, AnimalCarbon DioxideFearFemaleRatsRats, Sprague-DawleyCarbon Dioxide

Identifiers

PMID33481851
PMCPMC7822239
OpenAlexW3126092686

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.