MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136365393 · doi:10.1080/0036554021000028108

Effects of Isoflurane on the Auditory Brainstem Responses and Middle Latency Responses of Rats

2003· article· en· W2136365393 on OpenAlexaff
Rosamaria Santarelli, Edoardo Arslan, Luigi Carraro, Guido Conti, Massimo Capello, Gilles Plourde

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Oto-Laryngologica · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsofluraneAnesthesiaAnestheticBrainstemLatency (audio)MedicineAuditory brainstem responseAudiologyInternal medicineHearing loss

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of a volatile anesthetic, isoflurane, on auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) and middle latency responses (MLRs) recorded in rats. MATERIAL AND METHODS: ABRs and MLRs evoked by click stimuli were simultaneously recorded in eight rats in the awake condition and during anesthesia with isoflurane at clinically relevant concentrations. RESULTS: Vertex-recorded ABRs showed a significant increase in the latency of waves I-IV during anesthesia and the latency changes appeared to be significantly related to the isoflurane concentration. The I-IV interval also appeared to be significantly increased in comparison to the awake condition, while minor changes in ABR amplitudes were induced by isoflurane. MLRs, which were recorded by means of epidural electrodes implanted over the auditory cortex, appeared to be attenuated in amplitude and increased in latency during anesthesia. Only latency changes appeared to be significantly related to the isoflurane concentration. Moreover, "bursts" of high amplitude MLRs were observed during anesthesia at each concentration. CONCLUSION: The present findings indicate that both ABR and MLR latencies are increased by isoflurane in a concentration-dependent manner, whilst the anesthetic-induced attenuation in amplitude does not appear to be related to the isoflurane concentration.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 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

Citations39
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Oto-LaryngologicaSame topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207