Antinociceptive effects of epidural buprenorphine or medetomidine, or the combination, in conscious cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the antinociceptive effects of epidural buprenorphine (EB), epidural medetomidine (EM) or epidural buprenorphine-medetomidine (EBM). Eight cats were studied. Thermal thresholds (TT) were measured by increasing the temperature of a probe placed on the thorax. Mechanical thresholds (MT) were measured through inflation of a modified blood pressure bladder to the cat's forelimb. After baseline measurements, EB (0.02 mg/kg), EM (0.01 mg/kg) or half of the doses of each drug (EBM) were administered. Data were analysed using anova (P < 0.05) and 95% confidence interval (CI). TT increased from 30 min to 1 h after EB and at 45 min after EM. MT increased from 45 min to 2 h after EB, from 15 min to 1 h after EM and at 30, 45 min and at 2 h after EBM. MT were significantly lower after EB than EM at 30 min. TT were above the upper 95%CI from 15 min to 24 h after EB, from 15 min to 4 h after EM and from 15 min to 8 h after EBM. MT were above the upper 95%CI from 15 min to 5 h, and at 8, 12 and 24 h after EB, from 15 min to 6 h after EM and from 15 min to 6 h and at 12 and 24 h after EBM. All treatments had similar onset. Overall, EB presented longer period of action than EBM and EM. The same magnitude of analgesia was achieved, but with fewer side effects when EBM was compared with EM.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".