MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2581283635 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0170764

A Double-Blinded, Randomized Comparison of Medetomidine-Tiletamine-Zolazepam and Dexmedetomidine-Tiletamine-Zolazepam Anesthesia in Free-Ranging Brown Bears (Ursus Arctos)

2017· article· en· W2581283635 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Núria Fandos Esteruelas, Marc Cattet, Andreas Zedrosser, Gordon Stenhouse, Susanne Küker, Alina L. Evans, Jon M. Arnemo

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatchewan Health Authority
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta InnovatesfRI ResearchNaturvårdsverketNorges ForskningsrådAustrian Science FundSvenska Jägareförbundet
KeywordsMedetomidineDexmedetomidineAnesthesiaAnestheticArterial bloodMedicineHeart rateBase excessMean arterial pressureUrsusBlood pressureInternal medicinePopulationSedation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We compared anesthetic features, blood parameters, and physiological responses to either medetomidine-tiletamine-zolazepam or dexmedetomidine-tiletamine-zolazepam using a double-blinded, randomized experimental design during 40 anesthetic events of free-ranging brown bears (Ursus arctos) either captured by helicopter in Sweden or by culvert trap in Canada. Induction was smooth and predictable with both anesthetic protocols. Induction time, the need for supplemental drugs to sustain anesthesia, and capture-related stress were analyzed using generalized linear models, but anesthetic protocol did not differentially affect these variables. Arterial blood gases and acid-base status, and physiological responses were examined using linear mixed models. We documented acidemia (pH of arterial blood < 7.35), hypoxemia (partial pressure of arterial oxygen < 80 mmHg), and hypercapnia (partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide ≥ 45 mmHg) with both protocols. Arterial pH and oxygen partial pressure were similar between groups with the latter improving markedly after oxygen supplementation (p < 0.001). We documented dose-dependent effects of both anesthetic protocols on induction time and arterial oxygen partial pressure. The partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide increased as respiratory rate increased with medetomidine-tiletamine-zolazepam, but not with dexmedetomidine-tiletamine-zolazepam, demonstrating a differential drug effect. Differences in heart rate, respiratory rate, and rectal temperature among bears could not be attributed to the anesthetic protocol. Heart rate increased with increasing rectal temperature (p < 0.001) and ordinal day of capture (p = 0.002). Respiratory rate was significantly higher in bears captured by helicopter in Sweden than in bears captured by culvert trap in Canada (p < 0.001). Rectal temperature significantly decreased over time (p ≤ 0.05). Overall, we did not find any benefit of using dexmedetomidine-tiletamine-zolazepam instead of medetomidine-tiletamine-zolazepam in the anesthesia of brown bears. Both drug combinations appeared to be safe and reliable for the anesthesia of free-ranging brown bears captured by helicopter or by culvert trap.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicVeterinary Pharmacology and AnesthesiaFrench-language works237,207