Assessment of the analgesic effects of ketoprofen in ducks anesthetized with isoflurane
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether administration of ketoprofen would have analgesic effects in spontaneously breathing ducks anesthetized with isoflurane. ANIMALS: 13 healthy adult wild-strain Mallard ducks. PROCEDURE: Each duck was anesthetized twice in a crossover study design with 6 days between randomized treatments. Ducks were given ketoprofen (5 mg/kg, IM) or saline (0.9% NaCl) solution after a constant plane of anesthesia was established. Analgesia was assessed by measuring heart and respiratory rates and duration of application of a noxious stimulus. The noxious stimulus was applied 30, 50, and 70 minutes after drug administration and was maintained until gross purposeful movements were seen or for a maximum of 5 seconds. RESULTS: At all 3 evaluation times, heart rate increases in response to the noxious stimulus were greater when ducks were given saline solution than when they were given ketoprofen. The increase in respiratory rate in response to the noxious stimulus was greater when ducks were given saline solution than when they were given ketoprofen only 70 minutes after drug administration. When ducks were given ketoprofen, duration of the noxious stimulus was significantly longer 50 and 70 minutes, but not 30 minutes, after drug administration. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Ketoprofen reduced the increases in heart and respiratory rates associated with application of a noxious stimulus in spontaneously breathing adult Mallard ducks anesthetized with isoflurane delivered at approximately 2.9%, suggesting that ketoprofen had analgesic effects in these ducks. The onset of analgesic effects may be longer than 30 minutes in some ducks.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".