Evaluation of the thermal antinociceptive effects of hydromorphone hydrochloride after intramuscular administration to orange-winged Amazon parrots (Amazona amazonica)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: ). ANIMALS: 8 healthy adult parrots (4 males and 4 females). PROCEDURES: In a randomized crossover study, each bird received hydromorphone (0.1, 1, and 2 mg/kg) and saline (0.9% NaCl) solution (1 mL/kg; control) IM, with a 7-day interval between treatments. Each bird was assigned an agitation-sedation score, and the thermal foot withdrawal threshold (TFWT) was measured at predetermined times before and after treatment administration. Adverse effects were also monitored. The TFWT, agitation-sedation score, and proportion of birds that developed adverse effects were compared among treatments over time. RESULTS: Compared with the mean TFWT for the control treatment, the mean TFWT was significantly increased at 0.5, 1.5, and 3 hours and 1.5, 3, and 6 hours after administration of the 1- and 2-mg/kg hydromorphone doses, respectively. Significant agitation was observed at 0.5, 1.5, and 3 hours after administration of the 1 - and 2-mg/kg hydromorphone doses. Other adverse effects observed after administration of the 1- and 2-mg/kg doses included miosis, ataxia, and nausea-like behavior (opening the beak and moving the tongue back and forth). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although the 1- and 2-mg/kg hydromorphone doses appeared to have antinociceptive effects, they also caused agitation, signs of nausea, and ataxia. Further research is necessary to evaluate administration of lower doses of hydromorphone and other types of stimulation to better elucidate the analgesic and adverse effects of the drug in psittacine 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 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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".