Preliminary evaluation of the use of high‐flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy during recovery from general anesthesia in dogs with obstructive upper airway breathing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Brachycephalic airway syndrome can pose a risk of complicated recovery from anesthesia as a result of irritation to the excess pharyngeal andlaryngeal tissue present in affected dogs. High‐flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy is a respiratory support modality that offers provision of continuous positive airway pressure via high gas flow rates. The HFNC system actively warms and humidifies inspired gases, which improves comfort and facilitates tolerance of the high flow rates in people and dogs. HFNC oxygen therapy was applied to brachycephalic dogs that developed increased work of breathing or hypoxemia in the recovery phase of anesthesia to determine if this device would be tolerable and effective for relief of upper respiratory difficulty. Key Findings The HFNC nasal prong interface is well suited to the brachycephalic facial structure. The application of HFNC was found to reduce dyspnea scores in patients with signs of upper airway obstruction after general anesthesia. Aerophagia and changes in PCO 2 were noted. Significance Application of HFNC in the recovery period may result in improved airflow during times of somnolent obstructive breathing, not unlike the use of continuous positive airway pressure therapy in sleep‐disordered breathing in people.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".