EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF MIDAZOLAM AND FLUMAZENIL IN THE BALL PYTHON (PYTHON REGIUS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
). Ten healthy adult female ball pythons were used in a randomized and blinded crossover trial evaluating the effects of two dosages (1 and 2 mg/kg intramuscular [i.m.] in the cranial third of the body). In a subsequent open trial, nine ball pythons received 1 mg/kg i.m. of midazolam followed by 0.08 mg/kg i.m. of flumazenil 60 min later. Heart rate, respiratory rate, temperature, and the level of sedation and muscle relaxation (using a semiobjective scoring system) were evaluated. There were no significant differences between midazolam dosages for any of the parameters evaluated. Sedation scores were significantly increased compared with baseline from 15 min (1 mg/kg) and 10 min (2 mg/kg) postinjection up until 56 hr (1 mg/kg) and 72 hr (2 mg/kg) postinjection. Peak effect was reached 60 min postinjection, with 60% of snakes (6/10) being unable to right themselves. One snake developed paradoxical excitation with the 2 mg/kg dosage. Heart rates were significantly lower than baseline from 30 min to 128 hr postinjection with both midazolam dosages. Respiratory rates were significantly lower than baseline at four time points, with the highest dosage only: 15, 45, 60 min, and 8 hr postinjection. Flumazenil resulted in reversal of sedation and muscle relaxation in all snakes within 10 min of administration. However, resedation was evident in all snakes 3 hr after reversal. Midazolam administered at 1 and 2 mg/kg i.m. provides a moderate to profound, although prolonged, sedation and muscle relaxation in ball pythons. Flumazenil reverses the effects of midazolam in ball pythons, but its duration of action at the evaluated dosage is much shorter than midazolam, leading to resedation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".