Comparison of intramuscular medetomidine versus medetomidine-vatinoxan sedation in bearded dragons (Pogona vitticeps)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To assess sedation following intramuscular (IM) administration of medetomidine versus medetomidine–vatinoxan in bearded dragons. Study design Prospective, randomized, experimental, crossover study. Animals A group of 10 (five males and five females) bearded dragons (mean mass ± standard deviation 172 ± 28 g). Methods All animals were administered both medetomidine (0.2 mg kg –1 ) (MED) and medetomidine (0.2 mg kg –1 )-vatinoxan (4 mg kg –1 ) (MED-VAT) IM, with a 14–16 day washout period between treatments. Sedation was assessed using an adapted version of a sedation scale for bearded dragons (scale range 0–12) before (T0), and every 5 minutes from 10 to 45 minutes after treatment administration (T10–T45). Sedation scores were compared: 1) between time points (within treatments) using a Friedman test and Dunn's post hoc test; and 2) between treatments at each time point using a Wilcoxon paired test. Heart rate and respiratory rate ( f R ) were analyzed descriptively. At T45, atipamezole was administered IM. Results Compared with T0, sedation scores were significantly higher at most time points for both treatments. Highest median (range) scores occurred at T30 for MED [T0, 0 (0–0); T30, 2.5 (1–5); p = 0.0001] and at T35 and T40 for MED-VAT [T0, 0 (0–0); T35, 2 (1–5); p = 0.002; T40, 2 (1–5); p = 0.001]. No significant differences in sedation scores were identified between treatments at any time point. The two protocols caused bradycardia and reduction in f R . All animals were active and ate 1 hour after reversal administration. Conclusions and clinical relevance Both medetomidine and medetomidine–vatinoxan caused similar mild sedation in bearded dragons (median < 3/12). Inclusion of vatinoxan did not enhance sedation in this species.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".