Comparison between propofol and alfaxalone anesthesia for the evaluation of laryngeal function in healthy dogs utilizing computerized software
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laryngeal paralysis is a well-documented cause of upper respiratory tract obstruction in canines. Diagnosis of laryngeal paralysis is usually made by visual evaluation of laryngeal motion whilst patients are under a light-plane of anesthesia. However, in human studies of laryngeal function evaluation, it has been shown that subjective scoring can lead to significant interobserver variance, which may cause false diagnosis. In this study, we propose to introduce a more objective method of assessing laryngeal function using GlotAnTools and Tracker software to directly measure laryngeal motion in anaesthetized patients. Additionally, two anesthetic agents, alfaxalone and propofol, were compared in this study to assess their relative effect on laryngeal motion and thus their suitability for use in this diagnostic process. This study was a two-stage, cross-over, 1:1 randomization, with two active treatment arms. Ten beagles (10-18 months, five males and five females) were exposed to both anesthetic agents and laryngeal motion was recorded using videoendoscopy. GlotAnTools and Tracker software were applied to the recorded images to measure glottal gap area (A) and length (L). A normalized measure of laryngeal function-computed as A/L-was created, representing the "elongatedness" of the rima glottidis. The glottal gap area was significantly reduced in dogs receiving alfaxalone. This study objectively establishes that alfaxalone impacted laryngeal motion significantly more than propofol and confirms the capability of these computational methods to detect differences in laryngeal motion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".