Evaluation of the sedative properties of oral trazodone, gabapentin or their combination in healthy cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Sedation before veterinary visits is advocated to help reduce fear and anxiety in cats and facilitate safe handling. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of trazodone, gabapentin and a trazodone/gabapentin combination for oral sedation in healthy feline patients before blood donation. METHODS: A total of 21 cats were included in the study. Baseline sedation scores were obtained, and cats were randomly assigned to receive oral trazodone at 5 mg/kg (T), oral gabapentin at 10 mg/kg (G), their combination (TG) or placebo (control group). A sedation score was obtained 1 h after drug administration. A blood sample was obtained at the time of blood collection for quantification of drug plasma concentrations. Agreement between observers was tested with a Cohen's Kappa test. Sign tests to compare change within treatment and a Skilling-Mack rank ANOVA to test for differences between groups were performed to compare pre- and post-sedation scores as well as a magnitude of differences over time between the groups. A Spearman's rank correlation coefficient test was used to correlate sedation scores with drug plasma concentrations. RESULTS: <0.038) compared with the control group. There were no other significant differences between the groups. There was no correlation between drug plasma concentrations and sedation scores in any of the groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Administration of oral trazodone alone at 5 mg/kg or in combination with gabapentin at 10 mg/kg resulted in significant sedation in healthy cats with no evident side effects. The degree of sedation was more profound when both drugs were combined, but a gabapentin dose of 10 mg/kg alone failed to provide significant sedation in this population.
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 | 0.006 | 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".