THE EFFECTS OF TWO DOSAGES OF MIDAZOLAM ON SHORT-DURATION ANESTHESIA IN THE HARP SEAL (PHOCA GROENLANDICA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".