Isoflurane and ketamine:xylazine differentially affect intraocular pressure-associated scotopic threshold responses in Sprague-Dawley rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Amplitudes of electroretinograms (ERG) are enhanced during acute, moderate elevation of intraocular pressure (IOP) in rats anaesthetised with isoflurane. As anaesthetics alone are known to affect ERG amplitudes, the present study compares the effects of inhalant isoflurane and injected ketamine:xylazine on the scotopic threshold response (STR) in rats with moderate IOP elevation. METHODS: ) were recorded from each eye of Sprague-Dawley rats before, during, and after IOP elevation. RESULTS: Positive STR (pSTR) amplitudes for all conditions were significantly smaller (p = 0.0001) for isoflurane- than for ketamine:xylazine-anaesthetised rats. In addition, ketamine:xylazine was associated with a progressive increase in pSTR amplitudes over time (p = 0.0028). IOP elevation was associated with an increase in pSTR amplitude (both anaesthetics p < 0.0001). The absolute interocular differences in IOP-associated enhancement of pSTR amplitudes for ketamine:xylazine and isoflurane were similar (66.3 ± 35.5 vs. 54.2 ± 24.1 µV, respectively). However, the fold increase in amplitude during IOP elevation was significantly higher in the isoflurane- than in the ketamine:xylazine-anaesthetised rats (16.8 ± 29.7x vs. 2.1 ± 2.7x, respectively, p = 0.0004). CONCLUSIONS: The anaesthetics differentially affect the STRs in the rat model with markedly reduced amplitudes with isoflurane compared to ketamine:xylazine. However, the IOP-associated enhancement is of similar absolute magnitude for the two anaesthetics, suggesting that IOP stress and anaesthetic effects operate on separate retinal mechanisms.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".