Evaluation of the thermal antinociceptive effects and pharmacokinetics after intramuscular administration of buprenorphine hydrochloride to cockatiels (Nymphicus hollandicus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate thermal antinociceptive effects and pharmacokinetics of buprenorphine hydrochloride after IM administration to cockatiels (Nymphicus hollandicus). ANIMALS 16 adult (≥ 2 years old) cockatiels (8 males and 8 females). PROCEDURES Buprenorphine hydrochloride (0.3 mg/mL) at each of 3 doses (0.6, 1.2, and 1.8 mg/kg) and saline (0.9% NaCl) solution (control treatment) were administered IM to birds in a randomized within-subject complete crossover study. Foot withdrawal response to a thermal stimulus was determined before (baseline) and 0.5, 1.5, 3, and 6 hours after treatment administration. Agitation-sedation scores were also determined. For the pharmacokinetic analysis, buprenorphine (0.6 mg/kg) was administered IM to 12 of the birds, and blood samples were collected at 9 time points ranging from 5 minutes to 9 hours after drug administration. Samples were analyzed with liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated with commercial software. RESULTS Buprenorphine at 0.6, 1.2, and 1.8 mg/kg did not significantly change the thermal foot withdrawal response, compared with the response for the control treatment. No significant change in agitation-sedation scores was detected between all doses of buprenorphine and the control treatment. Plasma buprenorphine concentrations were > 1 ng/mL in all 4 birds evaluated at 9 hours. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Buprenorphine at the doses evaluated did not significantly change the thermal nociceptive threshold for cockatiels or cause sedative or agitative effects. Additional studies with other pain assessments and drug doses are needed to evaluate the analgesic and adverse effects of buprenorphine in cockatiels and other avian species.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".