Evaluation of the thermal antinociceptive effects and pharmacokinetics of hydromorphone hydrochloride after intramuscular administration to cockatiels (Nymphicus hollandicus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the thermal antinociceptive effects and pharmacokinetics of hydromorphone hydrochloride after IM administration to cockatiels (Nymphicus hollandicus). ANIMALS 16 healthy adult cockatiels. PROCEDURES During the first of 2 study phases, each cockatiel received each of 4 treatments (hydromorphone at doses of 0.1, 0.3, and 0.6 mg/kg and saline [0.9% NaCl] solution [0.33 mL/kg; control], IM), with a 14-day interval between treatments. For each bird, foot withdrawal to a thermal stimulus was determined following assignment of an agitation-sedation score at predetermined times before and for 6 hours after each treatment. During the second phase, a subset of 12 birds received hydromorphone (0.6 mg/kg, IM), and blood samples were collected at predetermined times for 9 hours after drug administration. Plasma hydromorphone concentration was determined by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Noncompartmental analysis of sparse data was used to calculate pharmacokinetic parameters. RESULTS Thermal withdrawal response did not differ among the 4 treatment groups at any time. Agitation-sedation scores following administration of the 0.3-and 0.6-mg/kg doses of hydromorphone differed significantly from those treated with saline solution and suggested the drug had a sedative effect. Plasma hydromorphone concentrations were > 1 ng/mL for 3 to 6 hours after drug administration in all birds. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Results indicated that IM administration of hydromorphone at the evaluated doses did not increase the thermal withdrawal threshold of cockatiels despite plasma drug concentrations considered therapeutic for other species. Further research is necessary to evaluate the analgesic effects of hydromorphone in cockatiels.
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) | 0.001 | 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".