The effects of subarachnoid administration of hyperbaric solutions of bupivacaine or ropivacaine in xylazine‐sedated calves undergoing surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the effects of subarachnoid administration of hyperbaric solutions of bupivacaine or ropivacaine in xylazine-sedated calves undergoing surgery. Subarachnoid anaesthesia was performed with either 20 mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine (bupivacaine group (BG), n=10) or 30 mg of hyperbaric ropivacaine (ropivacaine group (RG), n=10) into the lumbar dural space of 20 calves in a randomised, prospective clinical trial. Systolic (SBP), diastolic (DBP) and mean (MBP) blood pressure, heart rate (HR), respiratory rate, rectal temperature were recorded after sedation (time 0), and up to 120 minutes after injection. Onset, duration and magnitude of sensory block (scale 1-4) were determined using the pin-prick test throughout surgery. Data were analysed using analysis of variance and non-parametric tests (P<0.05). Bodyweight, age, duration of surgery, SBP, DBP, MBP, HR were not significantly different between groups. Onset of anaesthesia (mean±sd; BG, 5±1 minutes; RG, 7±1 minutes) and duration of anaesthesia (mean±sd; BG, 153±32 minutes; RG, 86±12 minutes) were significantly different between groups. Analgesic scores were significantly higher than baseline from 5 to 120 min, and from 7 to 85 min in BG and RG, respectively. Subarachnoid administration of hyperbaric solutions of bupivacaine produced faster onset and longer duration of anaesthesia than ropivacaine.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".