Evidence mapPaperPMID 40676135Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

CO

Manuela Peukert, Sebastian Zimmermann, Björn Egert, Dagmar Adeline Brüggemann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Manuela PeukertDepartment of Safety and Quality of Meat, Max Rubner-Institut, 95326, Kulmbach, Germany. Manuela.peukert@mri.bund.de.
Sebastian ZimmermannDepartment of Safety and Quality of Meat, Max Rubner-Institut, 95326, Kulmbach, Germany.
Björn EgertDepartment of Quality and Safety of Fruit and Vegetables, Max Rubner-Institut, 76131, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Dagmar Adeline BrüggemannDepartment of Safety and Quality of Meat, Max Rubner-Institut, 95326, Kulmbach, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of CO₂ or electrical stunning to render pigs unconscious and insensible before exsanguination is a common practice. Although both methods are widely implemented, they differ fundamentally in their underlying mechanisms, and studies have produced conflicting results regarding their influence on meat quality. In the case of CO₂ stunning, impaired pulmonary gas exchange causes a rapid onset of systemic hypoxia, accompanied by hypercapnia, which in turn lowers blood pH and triggers additional physiological stress responses. Electrical stunning, by contrast, induces a generalized epileptic seizure by depolarizing neuronal cell membranes, markedly increasing oxygen consumption in both the brain and peripheral muscles. Coupled with apnea-induced cessation of respiration, this leads to rapid systemic hypoxia and associated metabolic disturbances. With this study, we aim to generate comprehensive metabolic data as a foundation for deeper understanding of the animal's physiological responses depending on the stunning method used. We identified differences in metabolite pathways associated with the stunning method and evaluated potential influence on early post mortem processes relevant to meat quality development. After CO

Indexed as

Carbon DioxideEnergy MetabolismAnimalsMeatSwineCarbon DioxideCO2 stunningElectrical stunningEnergy metabolismHypoxiaMetabolomics

Identifiers

PMID40676135
PMCPMC12271332

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.