INHALATION ANESTHESIA IN DUMERIL'S MONITOR (VARANUS DUMERILI) WITH ISOFLURANE, SEVOFLURANE, AND NITROUS OXIDE: EFFECTS OF INSPIRED GASES ON INDUCTION AND RECOVERY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Induction and recovery from inhalation anesthesia of Dumeril's monitors (Varanus dumerili) using isoflurane, sevoflurane, and nitrous oxide (N2O) were characterized using a randomized crossover design. Mean times to induction for isoflurane in 100% oxygen (O2), sevoflurane in 100% O2, sevoflurane in 21% O2:79% nitrogen (N2; room air), and sevoflurane in 66% N2O:34% O2 were 13.00 +/- 4.55, 11.20 +/- 3.77, 10.40 +/- 2.50, and 9.40 +/- 2.80 min, respectively, at 26 degrees C (n = 10). Mask induction with sevoflurane was significantly faster than with isoflurane. There was no significant difference between the induction time for sevoflurane in O2 or in room air, but sevoflurane combined with N2O resulted in significantly faster inductions than were obtained with sevoflurane in 100% O2. All treatments resulted in a significantly higher respiratory rate than in undisturbed animals. There were no significant differences in respiratory rate among lizards receiving O2, isoflurane in 100% O2, sevoflurane in room air, and sevoflurane combined with N2O, but animals receiving sevoflurane in O2 had a lower respiratory rate than those receiving pure O2. The sequence of complete muscle relaxation during induction was consistent and not significantly different among the four treatments: front limbs lost tone first, followed by the neck and the hind limbs; then the righting reflex was lost and finally tail tone. There were no significant differences in recovery times between isoflurane and sevoflurane or between sevoflurane in 100% O2 and sevoflurane combined with N2O. Similar recovery times were observed in animals recovering in 100 and 21% O2.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".