Comparison of sedation with dexmedetomidine/atipamezole administered subcutaneously at <scp>GV20</scp> acupuncture point with usual routes of administration in dogs presented for orthopaedic radiographs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of subcutaneous administration of dexmedetomidine/atipamezole at the Governing Vessel 20 (GV20) acupuncture point compared with other administration routes (intramuscular and intravenous) in dogs presented for orthopaedic radiographs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: of atipamezole intramuscular (n=31), or subcutaneous at the GV20 point (n=27). Degree and time to sedation and recovery were assessed using a sedation scale and a Dynamic and Interactive Visual Analog Scale (DIVAS). Clinical physiological variables and adverse events were used. Statistical linear mixed-effect models (analysis of variance) and Cox models were performed. Significance was set at P-value <0.05. RESULTS: Sedation was insufficient to perform orthopaedic radiographs in six dogs in the intramuscular group. The time to sedation was significantly longer, and sedation scale and DIVAS scores were significantly lower in the intramuscular group. The intravenous group had significantly higher sedation scale and DIVAS scores than the GV20 group. No significant differences were observed between the intramuscular and GV20 recovery groups, although the time effect was significantly more pronounced in the GV20 recovery group. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Subcutaneous administration of dexmedetomidine and atipamezole at GV20 provided effective sedation and recovery in dogs undergoing orthopaedic radiographic studies. GV20 administration provided a clinically similar level of sedation to the intravenous route, and greater and faster sedation and similar recovery to intramuscular.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".