MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903733998 · doi:10.1093/jas/sky404.411

PSI-34 Painful and impractical: how to refine calf anesthesia.

2018· article· en· W2903733998 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Ede, M.A.G. von Keyserlingk, Daniel M. Weary

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSedationXylazineMedicineAnesthesiaRespiratory rateHeart rateIntramuscular injectionKetamineBlood pressureInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A common sedation procedure in veterinary practice is intramuscular injection of xylazine. However, recent research has shown that intramuscular (IM) injections are more aversive than subcutaneous (SC) and intra-nasal (IN) routes. The first aim of the current study was to assess the relative efficacy of xylazine sedation using these alternative routes. The effects of sedatives are usually estimated through physiological parameters, which can be impractical to apply on farm. Thus a second aim was to estimate how well a simple behavior assessment of depth of sedation is associated with different physiological parameters. Using a within-subject design, we assessed the effects of xylazine (0.2mg/kg) sedation in 12 young Holstein calves (6.2 ± 2.8d) when administered via IM, SC, IN drip tube (INt) and IN spray (INs). All calves received each route, with treatment order pseudo randomized and allowing 48h between treatments. Sedation was behaviorally assessed on a 0–5 scale based on general state of the animal and eyeball rotation. Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR) and rectal temperature (RT) were recorded for 2 hours after treatment. Calves sedated through the IM and SC routes had equivalent latencies to induction (mean±SD. IM:4.8 ± 2.0min; SC:6.8 ± 2.2min) and duration of sedation (IM:60.3 ± 25.5min; SC:61.9 ± 23.3min). During IN treatments calves showed less consistent and longer induction times (INt:33.0 ± 26.9min; INs:31.0 ± 15.1min) and shorter durations of sedation (INt: 42.0 ± 31.5 min; INs: 26.7 ± 21.8 min). The sedation scores were well correlated (repeated measures correlations with 95% CI) with HR (r=-0.55; CI -0.63, -0.47) but less so with RR (r=-0.34; CI -0.43,-0.24), and RT (r =-0.14, CI -0.24, -0.04). We conclude that the subcutaneous route is a viable alternative and recommend its use to avoid more aversive intramuscular injections. We also conclude that a simple clinical scale can be used to assess sedation and this measure is associated with some physiological parameters used for the same purpose.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicVeterinary Pharmacology and AnesthesiaFrench-language works237,207