Evaluation of tissue changes following intramuscular infiltration of lidocaine in rainbow trout <i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss were infiltrated with either saline or lidocaine adjacent to the dorsal fin to assess histopathological changes. Infiltration was done as if it were being used as a local anaesthetic. Tissue lesions and associated tissue healing were examined over a period of 30 days. Most changes occurred at the cranial site of where the solution was first infiltrated. The infiltration of a dose of 10 mg kg−1 of lidocaine appears to have damaged the skeletal muscle and connective tissues more than a similar volume of saline, especially during the first 15 days. The primary changes included haemorrhage, inflammation and muscle degeneration and necrosis. By day 30 post‐infiltration inflammatory lesions were either nearly or completely absent, signs of myofibre regeneration were noted in only one fish. This experiment shows local anaesthetics and saline can produce localized tissue damage, especially during the first 2 weeks post infiltration. Care should be taken to allow the fish to heal for at least 30 days and probably more, no matter the solution administered, especially if giving repeated injections or infiltrations at the same site.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".