Evaluation of induction by use of a combination of oxymorphone and diazepam or hydromorphone and diazepam and maintenance of anesthesia by use of isoflurane in dogs with experimentally induced hypovolemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare induction with hydromorphone and diazepam (HydroD) or oxymorphone and diazepam (OxyD) followed by maintenance with isoflurane in dogs with induced hypovolemia. ANIMALS: 6 healthy mixed-breed dogs. PROCEDURE: The study used a crossover design. Measurements were obtained in normovolemic dogs during isoflurane. Hypovolemia was induced (blood loss of 30 mL/kg) and measurements repeated following recovery from anesthesia, after HydroD (hydromorphone, 0.1 mg/kg; diazepam, 0.2 mg/kg; i.v.) or OxyD (oxymorphone, 0.05 mg/kg; diazepam, 0.2 mg/kg; i.v.), after another dose of the same opioid, during administration of isoflurane (end-tidal concentration, 0.9%), and after glycopyrrolate (0.01 mg/kg, i.v.). Significant changes were identified. RESULTS: Induction effect was evident within 1 minute. All dogs were intubated after the second dose of opioid. No significant differences were found between inductions. The HydroD decreased heart rate (mean +/- SEM, -41 +/- 9.8 beats/min), whereas both inductions increased stroke index (0.4 +/- 0.09 mL/kg/beat) and caused moderate respiratory depression. Cardiac index was decreased (-30.2 +/- 6.04 mL/kg/min) and there was minor metabolic acidosis during isoflurane following HydroD, compared with values for anesthetized normovolemic dogs. Glycopyrrolate increased heart rate (50 +/- 8.6 beats/min) and decreased systolic blood pressure (-23.2 +/- 4.87 mm Hg) in dogs induced with HydroD and decreased stroke index (-0.3 +/- 0.08 mL/kg/beat) for both inductions. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Similar effects were detected after administration of HydroD or OxyD in hypovolemic dogs. Either combination should be safe for use in hypovolemic dogs. Administration of glycopyrrolate was not beneficial.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".