Cardiopulmonary effects and induction and recovery characteristics of isoflurane and sevoflurane in foals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare induction and recovery characteristics and cardiopulmonary effects of isoflurane and sevoflurane in foals. DESIGN: Prospective crossover study. ANIMALS: 6 healthy foals. PROCEDURE: Foals were anesthetized twice (once at 1 month of age and again at 3 months of age). Anesthesia was induced by administration of the agent in oxygen through a nasotracheal tube. During maintenance of anesthesia, foals were positioned in dorsal recumbency; intermittent positive-pressure ventilation was performed. Characteristics of induction and recovery were recorded. Cardiopulmonary variables were recorded 10 minutes after anesthetic induction and 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes later. RESULTS: All 6 foals were successfully anesthetized with isoflurane and sevoflurane. There were no significant differences between the 2 drugs in regard to characteristics of induction or recovery, and induction and recovery were generally smooth and unremarkable. There were no significant differences between drugs in regard to measured cardiopulmonary variables; however, both drugs caused initial hypotension that resolved over time. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggest that isoflurane and sevoflurane can both be used for general anesthesia of 1- to 3-month-old foals. Significant differences between the 2 agents were not detected for any of the variables measured, suggesting that quality of anesthesia with these 2 agents was comparable.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".