The effects of intravenous alfaxalone with and without premedication on intraocular pressure in healthy dogs.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of intravenous alfaxalone with and without premedication on intraocular pressure (IOP) in healthy dogs. Thirty-three dogs were randomized to receive 1 of 3 treatments: acepromazine [0.03 mg/kg body weight (BW)] with butorphanol (0.2 mg/kg BW) intramuscularly (IM), followed by intravenous (IV) alfaxalone (1.5 mg/kg BW); dexmedetomidine (0.002 mg/kg BW) with hydromorphone (0.1 mg/kg BW) IM, followed by alfaxalone (1 mg/kg BW) IV; and saline 0.9% (0.02 mL/kg BW) IM, followed by alfaxalone (3 mg/kg BW) IV. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured at baseline, 15 min, and 30 min after premedication, after pre-oxygenation, after administration of alfaxalone, and after intubation. After induction and after intubation, the IOP was significantly increased in all groups compared to baseline. While premedication with acepromazine/butorphanol or dexmedetomidine/hydromorphone did not cause a significant increase in IOP, the risk of vomiting and the associated peak in IOP after dexmedetomidine/hydromorphone should be considered when selecting an anesthetic protocol for dogs with poor tolerance for transient increases in IOP.
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 | 0.000 | 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".