Antinociceptive effects of epidural administration of hydromorphone in conscious cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the antinociceptive effects of epidurally administered hydromorphone in conscious, healthy cats. ANIMALS: 7 healthy adult cats. PROCEDURES: An epidural catheter was implanted in each cat. Thermal threshold (TT) was measured by increasing the temperature of a probe placed on the thorax and monitoring the cat's response. Mechanical threshold (MT) was measured by manually inflating a modified blood-pressure bladder affixed to a thoracic limb and monitoring the response. After the baseline TT and MT values were determined, hydromorphone (0.05 mg/kg) or an equal volume of saline (0.9% NaCl) solution was epidurally injected. The TT and MT were again measured at 15, 30, 45, 60, 120, 180, 240, 300, 360, and 480 minutes after injection. RESULTS: TT and MT did not change significantly from baseline values at any point after saline solution was administered. The MT and TT values were significantly higher than the baseline value at 15 minutes and at 120 and 180 minutes after hydromorphone administration, respectively. The MT and TT values after hydromorphone administration were also significantly different from those obtained at 30 minutes and at 15 minutes and 120 to 300 minutes, respectively, after administration of saline solution. No significant changes in skin temperature were detected after either treatment. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Epidural administration of hydromorphone at a dosage of 0.05 mg/kg yielded thermal and some mechanical antinociceptive effects in cats, and no hyperthermia was detected. Additional studies of the antinociceptive effectiveness and duration of epidurally administered hydromorphone in clinical situations are required.
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".