Cardiopulmonary effects of romifidine/ketamine or xylazine/ketamine when used for short duration anesthesia in the horse.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cardiovascular changes associated with anesthesia induced and maintained with romifidine/ketamine versus xylazine/ ketamine were compared using 6 horses in a cross over design. Anesthesia was induced and maintained with romifidine (100 microg/kg, IV)/ketamine (2.0 mg/kg, IV) and ketamine (0.1 mg/kg/min, IV), respectively, in horses assigned to the romifidine/ ketamine group. Horses assigned to the xylazine/ketamine group had anesthesia induced and maintained with xylazine (1.0 mg/kg, IV)/ketamine (2.0 mg/kg, IV) and a combination of xylazine (0.05 mg/kg/min, IV) and ketamine (0.1 mg/kg/min, IV), respectively. Cardiopulmonary variables were measured at intervals up to 40 min after induction. All horses showed effective sedation following intravenous romifidine or xylazine and achieved recumbency after ketamine administration. There were no significant differences between groups in heart rate, arterial oxygen partial pressures, arterial carbon dioxide partial pressures, cardiac index, stroke index, oxygen delivery, oxygen utilization, systemic vascular resistance, left ventricular work, or any of the measured systemic arterial blood pressures. Cardiac index and left ventricular work fell significantly from baseline while systemic vascular resistance increased from baseline in both groups. The oxygen utilization ratio was higher in the xylazine group at 5 and 15 min after induction. In conclusion, the combination of romifidine/ketamine results in similar cardiopulmonary alterations as a xylazine/ketamine regime, and is a suitable alternative for clinical anesthesia of the horse from a cardiopulmonary viewpoint.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".