MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154185373 · doi:10.1638/05-052.1

THE EFFECTS OF TWO DOSAGES OF MIDAZOLAM ON SHORT-DURATION ANESTHESIA IN THE HARP SEAL (PHOCA GROENLANDICA)

2006· article· en· W2154185373 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Pang, Yves Rondenay, Lena N. Measures, Stéphane Lair

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPremedicationMidazolamAnesthesiaIsofluraneSalineMedicineDoseAnestheticPhocaHypnoticIsotonic salineIntubationSedationBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to provide safe anesthesia for bronchoalveolar lavage and assess the utility of premedication with i.m. midazolam for short-duration anesthesia with isoflurane in harp seals (Phoca groenlandica). Fourteen yearling harp seal pups were anesthetized three times each as part of a prospective, cross-over, blinded study. Each animal received i.m. premedication with saline, low-dose, or high-dose midazolam (respectively 0.1 and 0.2 mg/ kg). Following premedication, anesthesia was induced with 4% isoflurane in oxygen delivered through a mask and connected to a Bain non-rebreathing system. A significantly longer time was taken from the end of general anesthesia to head movement in the high-dose group compared with the saline group (P = 0.002). A significantly longer time was taken from the end of general anesthesia to ambulation in the high-dose group compared with the saline group (P = 0.006). There were no significant differences between groups in the subjective assessment of anesthetic quality or ease of intubation. Premedication with i.m. midazolam at the dosages used did prolong recovery from anesthesia, although to a degree unlikely to be significant clinically.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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