Cardiopulmonary effects and recovery characteristics associated with 2 sedative protocols for assisted ventilation in healthy neonatal foals.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neonatal foals may require prolonged sedation to permit ventilatory support in the first few days of life. The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the cardiopulmonary effects and clinical recovery characteristics of 2 sedative/analgesia protocols in healthy foals receiving assisted ventilation. Foals were randomized to receive dexmedetomidine, butorphanol, and propofol (DBP) or midazolam, butorphanol, and propofol (MBP) during a 24-hour period. Infusion rates of dexmedetomidine, midazolam, and propofol were adjusted and propofol boluses administered according to set protocols to maintain optimal sedation and muscle relaxation. Ventilatory support variables were adjusted to preset targets. Physiologic variables were recorded, cardiac output (CO) measured (thermodilution), and arterial and mixed venous blood collected for gas analysis at intervals up to 24 hours. Foals in group DBP received dexmedetomidine [2.4 ± 0.5 μg/kg body weight (BW) per hour], butorphanol (13 μg/kg BW per hour), and propofol (6.97 ± 0.86 mg/kg BW per hour), whereas foals in group MBP received midazolam (0.14 ± 0.04 mg/kg BW per hour), butorphanol (13 μg/kg BW per hour), and propofol (5.98 ± 1.33 mg/kg BW per hour). Foals in the DBP group received significantly more propofol boluses (9.0 ± 3.0) than those in the MBP group (4.0 ± 2.0). Although physiologic variables remained within acceptable limits, heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and cardiac index (CI) were lower in foals in the DBP group than in the MBP group. Times to sternal recumbency, standing, and nursing were significantly shorter in the DBP than MBP group. We found that MBP and DBP protocols are suitable to assist ventilatory support in neonatal foals, although MBP results in a prolonged recovery compared to DBP.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".