A randomized clinical trial to compare ketamine-butorphanol-azaperone-medetomidine and detomidine-etorphine-acepromazine for anesthesia of captive Przewalski horses (Equus przewalskii)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare ketamine-butorphanol-azaperone-medetomidine (KBAM) to detomidine-etorphine-acepromazine (DEA) for field anesthesia in captive Przewalski horses (Equus przewalskii). ANIMALS: 10 adult Przewalski horses. PROCEDURES: A prospective randomized crossover trial was conducted. Each horse was immobilized once with KBAM (200 mg ketamine, 109.2 mg butorphanol, 36.4 mg azaperone, and 43.6 mg medetomidine) and once with DEA (40 mg detomidine premedication, followed 20 minutes later by 3.9 to 4.4 mg etorphine and 16 to 18 mg acepromazine). Both protocols were administered by IM remote dart injection with a washout period of 6 months between treatments. Selected cardiorespiratory variables and quality of anesthesia were recorded. Antagonists were administered IM (KBAM, 215 mg atipamezole and 50 mg naltrexone; DEA, 4 mg RX821002 and 100 mg naltrexone). RESULTS: All horses were anesthetized and recovered uneventfully. Inductions (DEA, 6.8 min; KBAM, 11.6 min; P = 0.04) and recoveries (DEA, 3.2 min; KBAM, 19.6 min; P < 0.01) were faster with DEA compared with KBAM. Quality scores for induction and recovery did not differ between protocols, but maintenance quality was poorer for DEA (P < 0.01). Clinical concerns during DEA immobilizations included apnea, severe hypoxemia (arterial partial pressure of oxygen < 60 mm Hg), muscle rigidity, and tremors. Horses treated with KBAM were moderately hypoxemic, but arterial partial pressures of oxygen were higher compared with DEA (P < 0.01). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Captive Przewalski horses are effectively immobilized with KBAM, and this protocol results in superior muscle relaxation and less marked hypoxemia during the maintenance phase, but slower inductions and recoveries, compared with DEA.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".