MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rapid Recovery and Short Duration Anesthesia after Low Dose Ketamine and High Dose Dexmedetomidine in Rhesus Macaques (<i>Macaca mulatta</i>)

2021· article· en· W3137988464 on OpenAlexaff
Kristin E. Killoran, Courtney A Walsh, Jennifer L. Asher, Molly B Tarleton, Steven Ray Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Sedative Agents
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKetamineDexmedetomidineAtipamezoleMedicineAnestheticAnesthesiaMedetomidineAgonistInternal medicineReceptorSedationHeart rateBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anesthesia in rhesus macaques is required for many procedures. Although ketamine is the backbone of most anesthetic protocols, tolerance to the drug can develop, resulting in the need for higher doses to provide sufficient restraint. Combination with other drugs, such as α-agonists, can be ketamine-sparing, providing for sufficient restraint at lower ketamine doses. In addition, because α-agonists are reversible, recovery from anesthesia has the potential to be much shorter. We hypothesized that use of a low dose of ketamine with a high dose of dexmedetomidine, an α2 receptor selective agonist, in male and female rhesus macaques less than 15 y of age would provide adequate anesthesia for short procedures and that recovery would be faster than in macaques given a higher dose of ketamine (10 mg/kg) alone. We found that the combination, in conjunction with atipamezole for reversal, provided smooth induction of anesthesia and significantly shorter recovery time than did ketamine alone, with no significant effects of sex. The combination of low dose ketamine and high dose dexmedetomidine also provided a 30-min window of anesthesia with analgesia sufficient for mild to moderately painful procedures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal ScienceSame topicAnesthesia and Sedative AgentsFrench-language works237,207