MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094378981 · doi:10.7589/0090-3558-36.2.324

EVALUATION OF ISOFLURANE AND PROPOFOL ANESTHESIA FOR INTRAABDOMINAL TRANSMITTER PLACEMENT IN NESTING FEMALE CANVASBACK DUCKS

2000· article· en· W2094378981 on OpenAlexafffund
Karen L. Machin, Nigel Caulkett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Diseases · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersDelta WaterfowlInstitute for Wetland and Waterfowl Research, Ducks Unlimited Canada
KeywordsIsofluranePropofolAnesthesiaAnestheticMedicineVentilation (architecture)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heart rate, occurrence of apnea, body temperature, quality of anesthesia and nest abandonment were compared during either propofol or isoflurane anesthesia of nesting female canvasback ducks (Aythya valisineria) at 15 to 18 days of incubation. One hundred eighteen canvasbacks were assigned randomly to three treatments so that nest abandonment could be compared among treatments from May to July 1995 and 1996. Sterile dummy silicone implants were placed during an abdominal laparotomy while ducks were anesthetized with either propofol or isoflurane, or ducks were flushed from the nest but not captured (control). Propofol was delivered through an intravenous catheter, while isoflurane was delivered in oxygen. Propofol provided smooth, rapid induction and recovery, whereas ducks recovering from isoflurane tended to struggle. At the nest, ducks in the propofol group were given additional boluses until they were lightly anesthetized, whereas birds that received isoflurane were released. All birds survived surgery but one death occurred prior to surgery in 1995 using propofol during a period without ventilation and monitoring. Adequate artificial ventilation is recommended to prevent complications. Heart rate declined significantly in both years during isoflurane anesthesia and in 1995 during propofol anesthesia but not 1996. During both isoflurane and propofol anesthesia, body temperature declined significantly over time. Nest abandonment was significantly different among treatments and occurred in all treatment groups in both years, but propofol (15%) and control groups (8%) had lower than expected abandonment compared to isoflurane (28%). Propofol offers several advantages over isoflurane for field use; equipment is easily portable, lower anesthetic cost, and ambient temperature does not alter physical characteristics of the drug. Advantages over isoflurane, including lower nest abandonment following intraabdominal radio transmitter placement, make propofol a good anesthetic choice for field studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations56
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife DiseasesSame topicVeterinary Pharmacology and AnesthesiaFrench-language works237,207