Comparison of intramuscular administration of alfaxalone-ketamine-dexmedetomidine and alfaxalone-butorphanol-midazolam in naked mole-rats (Heterocephalus glaber)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: ). ANIMALS: 20 naked mole-rats. PROCEDURES: Naked mole-rats received AKD (alfaxalone, 2 mg/kg; ketamine, 20 mg/kg; and dexmedetomidine, 0.02 mg/kg; n = 10) or ABM (alfaxalone, 2 mg/kg; butorphanol, 2 mg/kg; and midazolam, 1 mg/kg; 9) IM; 1 animal was removed from the study. Atipamezole (I mg/kg) and flumazenil (0.1 mg/kg) were administered 40 minutes after anesthetic induction (defined as loss of the righting reflex) with AKD and ABM, respectively. Heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, and reflexes were recorded every 5 minutes. RESULTS: The ABM group had significantly longer median times for induction and recovery than the AKD group. Administration of ABM resulted in significantly lower respiratory rates than administration of AKD from time of anesthetic induction to 10 minutes after induction. Respiratory rate significantly decreased in the AKD group from I0 minutes after induction through the end of the anesthetic period but did not change over time in the ABM group. Males had higher respiratory rates in both groups. Loss of the righting reflex was still evident 40 minutes after induction in both groups. In the AKD group, all tested reflexes were absent from I0 to 40 minutes after induction; the ABM group had variable reflexes that recovered within individual animals over time. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Both AKD and ABM provided effective immobilization in naked mole-rats, but AKD appeared to provide more consistent and deeper anesthesia, compared with administration of ABM.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".