Anesthesia of the Leopard Frog, Rana pipiens: A Comparative Study between four Different Agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT OBJECTIVES: To compare the anesthetic effects of tricaine methanesulfonate, clove oil, Orajel® and Emla® on leopard frogs, Rana pipiens. STUDY DESIGN: Four groups of 12 fully metamorphosed frogs, weighing from 4 to 13 g were used for this study. Frogs from each group were topically exposed for five minutes to one of the following treatment: a buffered solution of 1 g/L of tricaine methanesulfonate, a suspension of clove oil (255 mg/L of eugenol), 11.5 mg of benzocaine (Orajel® cream) and 60 mg of a 1:1 mixture of lidocaine:prilocaine (Emla® cream). Levels of anesthesia were assessed based on the loss of righting reflex, corneal reflex, superficial pain sensation and deep pain sensation. Variations of the cardiac and respiratory rates were monitored throughout the anesthetic procedure. Chi-square exact test, post-hoc test, tukey post-hoc test and linear model were used to compare the results obtained with the different agents. CONCLUSIONS: Tricaine methanesulfonate was the most effective agent tested inducing surgical plane of anesthesia in all the frogs. Exposure to clove oil and Orajel® cream induced immobility in 96.7% and 66.7% of the frogs, respectively, but these two compounds failed to provide adequate analgesia for surgical stimuli in approximately half of the frogs. Consequently, at the dosages used in the current study, these compounds are not recommended for procedures involving painful stimuli. Exposure to Emla® cream was associated with a high mortality rate (42%) and should not be used for anesthesia of frogs. Several time parameters measured were affected by the size of the individual frogs; the anesthetic effects being usually greater in smaller frogs. The absence of corneal reflex was usually predictive of the loss of superficial pain sensation. A marked respiratory depression, frequently leading to prolonged apnea, was induced with all four agents tested.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".