Comparison of buprenorphine and meloxicam for postsurgical analgesia in rats: effects on body weight, locomotor activity, and hemodynamic parameters.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Buprenorphine is administered to humans and animals for postoperative pain management, although its use is associated with complications. Alternative analgesics, including the nonsteroidal antiinflammatory meloxicam, are available, but information on their postoperative effects is limited. The objective of the present study was to compare buprenorphine (0.03 mg/kg SC twice daily for 3 d) with meloxicam (2 mg/kg SC initial dose followed by 1 mg/kg SC once daily for 2 d) by assessing parameters relating to postsurgical recovery in rats that underwent surgical implantation of radiotelemetric transducers. Rats treated after surgery with buprenorphine showed greater reductions in body weight, food consumption, locomotor activity, and nighttime heart rates than did meloxicam-treated rats. Buprenorphine and meloxicam treatments both had stimulatory effects on mean arterial pressure and daytime heart rate measurements, although effects on nighttime mean arterial pressure were greater in the buprenorphine-treated rats. In summary, the lesser physiologic changes associated with meloxicam, as compared with buprenorphine, suggest that meloxicam offers advantages for use as a postoperative analgesic after laparotomy and radiotelemetric transducer implantation in rats.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".