MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071827576 · doi:10.2460/ajvr.68.4.358

Comparison of cardiopulmonary responses during sedation with epidural and local anesthesia for laparoscopic-assisted jejunostomy feeding tube placement with cardiopulmonary responses during general anesthesia for laparoscopic-assisted or open surgical jejunostomy feeding tube placement in healthy dogs

2007· article· en· W2071827576 on OpenAlexafffund
Saundra A. Hewitt, Brigitte A. Brisson, Melissa Sinclair, William C. Sears

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Veterinary Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersOVC Pet Trust
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaSedationPropofolAnestheticSurgeryCardiopulmonary bypass

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of laparoscopic-assisted jejunostomy feeding tube (J-tube) placement in healthy dogs under sedation with epidural and local anesthesia and compare cardiopulmonary responses during this epidural anesthetic protocol with cardiopulmonary responses during general anesthesia for laparoscopic-assisted or open surgical J-tube placement. ANIMALS: 15 healthy mixed-breed dogs. PROCEDURES: Dogs were randomly assigned to receive open surgical J-tube placement under general anesthesia (n = 5 dogs; group 1), laparoscopic-assisted J-tube placement under general anesthesia (5; group 2), or laparoscopic-assisted J-tube placement under sedation with epidural and local anesthesia (5; group 3). Cardiopulmonary responses were measured at baseline (time 0), every 5 minutes during the procedure (times 5 to 30 minutes), and after the procedure (after desufflation [groups 2 and 3] or at the start of abdominal closure [group 1]). Stroke volume, cardiac index, and O(2) delivery were calculated. RESULTS: All group 3 dogs tolerated laparoscopic-assisted J-tube placement under sedation with epidural and local anesthesia. Comparison of cardiovascular parameters revealed a significantly higher cardiac index, mean arterial pressure, and O(2) delivery in group 3 dogs, compared with group 1 and 2 dogs. Minimal differences in hemodynamic parameters were found between groups undergoing laparoscopic-assisted and open surgical J-tube placement under general anesthesia (ie, groups 1 and 2); these differences were not considered to be clinically important in healthy research dogs. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Sedation with epidural and local anesthesia provided satisfactory conditions for laparoscopic-assisted J-tube placement in healthy dogs; this anesthetic protocol caused less cardiopulmonary depression than general anesthesia and may represent a better choice for J-tube placement in critically ill patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.146
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Veterinary ResearchSame topicVeterinary Pharmacology and AnesthesiaFrench-language works237,207