The effect of alphaxalone–alphadolone, propofol, and pentobarbitone anaesthesia on the β-endorphin and ACTH response to haemorrhage in the pig
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the literature there appears to be variability in reported levels of certain hormones during haemorrhage, specifically adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH) and β-endorphin. It is possible that this variability may be due to the choice of anaesthetic. Therefore, the effect of 3 common research-only anaesthetic agents (alphaxalone-alphadolone, propofol, and pentobarbitone) on ACTH and β-endorphin levels during haemorrhage was assessed in pigs. Animals were divided into 3 groups: group I received alphaxalone-alphadolone (n = 5), group II received propofol (n = 6), and group III received pentobarbitone (n = 6). Pigs were subjected to a continuous fixed-volume haemorrhage under one of the above anaesthetics while being mechanically ventilated. ACTH and β-endorphin levels increased significantly during haemorrhage under propofol and pentobarbitone anaesthesia but not with alphaxalone-alphadolone. For ACTH there was no significant difference between the groups, whereas for β-endorphin there was a significant difference between the propofol- and pentobarbitone-anaesthetized pigs. The increase in heart rate during haemorrhage was significantly different between the alphaxalone-alphadolone and propofol as well as between the propofol and pentobarbitone groups. The drop in blood pressure was only significantly different between the alphaxalone-alphadolone- and propofol-anaesthetized pigs. These results indicate that the choice of anaesthetic agent can affect the hormone response to haemorrhage and may account for the variable hormone levels reported in the published literature to date.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".