Comparison of Mean Arterial Blood Pressure and Heart Rate Changes in Response to Three Different Randomized Isotonic Crystalloid Boluses in Hypotensive Anesthetized Dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this prospective, randomized, nonblinded, controlled clinical trial was to compare mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) during an intravenous bolus of three different balanced isotonic crystalloid solutions in euvolemic, anesthetized dogs with hypotension. Thirty healthy dogs (American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I-II) weighing at least 15 kg that presented for elective orthopedic or dental surgical procedures at the Ryan Veterinary Hospital for Small Animals of the University of Pennsylvania were included in this study. Anesthetized hypotensive patients (defined as a MAP ≤ 65 mmHg), were administered an infusion of Lactated Ringer's solution (LRS), Plasma-Lyte (PLYTE) or Canadian Plasma-Lyte (PLYTECA), selected at random. The infusion was administered over 15 min via a volumetric fluid pump. Differences in oscillometric MAP and HR between time points and across treatments were evaluated by mANOVA. Intravenous isotonic crystalloid infusions over 15 min did not significantly change MAP or HR in hypotensive dogs under general anesthesia. Neither LRS, PLYTE nor PLYTECA exacerbated hypotension or caused tachycardia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".