Subcutaneous administration of hydromorphone (0.2 mg/kg) provides antinociception in ferrets (Mustela putorius furo)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate antinociceptive efficacy of SC administration of hydromorphone hydrochloride and buprenorphine hydrochloride in ferrets (Mustela putorius furo). ANIMALS: 14 healthy adult ferrets (6 neutered males, 8 spayed females). METHODS: In a randomized, blind, controlled, complete crossover design, all 14 ferrets received a single, SC injection of hydromorphone low dose (0.1 mg/kg), hydromorphone high dose (0.2 mg/kg), buprenorphine low dose (0.02 mg/kg), buprenorphine high dose (0.04 mg/kg), or saline solution (0.2 mL/kg). Sedation and forelimb withdrawal latency from a noxious thermal stimulation were evaluated, and behavior was recorded for a total of 8 hours postinjection. RESULTS: Compared to saline, administration of hydromorphone at 0.2 mg/kg resulted in an estimated increase of withdrawal latencies of 7.4 seconds (95% CI, 3.2 to 11.6) at 60 minutes, of 6.6 seconds (2.4 to 10.8) at 90 minutes, of 6.0 seconds (1.8 to 10.2) at 120 minutes, of 7.0 seconds (2.9 to 11.1) at 180 minutes, and of 4.5 seconds (0.5 to 8.6) at 240 minutes. These differences were statistically significant. Hydromorphone administered at a lower dose and buprenorphine at either dose did not increase withdrawal latencies compared to saline. Based on the sedation score used in this study, signs of sedation increased over time in a similar fashion with all treatments, including saline. Erratic dysphoric-like behaviors occurred in all groups except for saline. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: SC administration of hydromorphone at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg provided antinociception from 1 to 4 hours postinjection. Further validation of sedation scores in ferrets is warranted.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".