The use of ketamine-xylazine and ketamine-medetomidine with and without their antagonists, yohimbine and atipamezole hydrochloride to immobilize Raccoons (<em>Procyon lotor</em>) in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was undertaken to identify a drug combination that provided a suitable plane of anesthesia and pain suppression and reduced recovery time for minor surgical procedures in raccoons. In fall 2004, 40 wild Raccoons (Procyon lotor) were chemically immobilized using ketamine hydrochloride combined with either xylazine or medetomidine hydrochloride. Immobilizing treatments within and between drug types were compared in terms of induction, arousal and recovery times. The ketamine-xylazine (KX) group (n = 20) was given a combination of 20 mg/kg ketamine hydrochloride and 2 mg/kg xylazine hydrochloride by body weight, and the effects on induction, arousal and recovery time were recorded with and without the antagonist yohimbine hydrochloride. The ketamine-medetomidine (KM) group (n = 20) was given a combination of 5 mg/kg ketamine hydrochloride and 0.05 mg/kg medetomidine hydrochloride by body weight, and induction, arousal and recovery times were recorded with and without the use of the antagonist atipamezole hydrochloride. Administration of yohimbine hydrochloride at 0.1 mg/kg body weight to the KX group and atipamezole hydrochloride at 0.25 mg/kg body weight to the KM group produced considerably shorter arousal and recovery times in the KM group (P = 0.016). Mean arousal and recovery time with standard deviations ± ( SD ) for the KX group with yohimbine hydrochloride antagonist were 36.10 ± 10.69 and 94.2 ± 23.18 minutes; for the KM group with atipamezole hydrochloride antagonist, they were 7.95 ± 3.94 and 65.58 ± 14.75 respectively. At these doses, the KM combination reversed with atipamezole hydrochloride significantly reduced arousal and recovery times and resulted in a quality of anesthesia that would allow safe tooth and blood extraction in Raccoons.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".