Comparaison des effets de la xylazine et de la romifidine administrées en période péri-opératoire sur le réveil de chevaux anesthésiés
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparison of the effects of xylazine and romifidine administered perioperatively on the recovery of anesthetized horses. The present study was designed to compare recoveries from anesthesia following the use of romifidine or xylazine in horses. In a prospective blind randomized clinical trial, 28 horses, undergoing elective arthroscopy, were randomly allocated into 2 groups. The intravenous anesthesia protocol used in the xylazine group was: butorphanol [0.02 mg/kg body weight (BW)] and xylazine (0.5 to 0.7 mg/kg BW) for premedication, diazepam (0.1 mg/kg BW) and ketamine (2.2 mg/kg BW) for induction, isoflurane in oxygen for maintenance and xylazine (0.1 mg/kg BW) in recovery. The xylazine was replaced with romifidine 0.05 to 0.08 mg/kg BW (premedication) and 0.01 mg/kg BW (recovery) in the romifidine group. The quality of recovery was evaluated with a modified scoring system and the duration recorded. Wilcoxon Ranked Sum test (P < 0.05) was used for statistical analysis. The recovery quality scores and the durations of recovery were not statistically different between the 2 groups. In this study, romifidine and xylazine were equal in their effects on recovery qualities. (Translated by the authors)
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".