Differential effects of isoflurane on auditory and visually evoked potentials in the cat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evoked potentials can be used as an intraoperative monitoring measure in neurological surgery. Auditory evoked potentials (AEPs), or specifically brainstem auditory evoked responses (BAERs), are known for being minimally affected by anesthetics, while visually evoked potentials (VEPs) are presumed to be unreliable and easily affected by anesthetics. While many anesthesia trials or intraoperative recordings have provided evidence in support of these hypotheses, the comparisons were always made between AEPs and VEPs recorded sequentially, rather than recorded at the same time. Although the logistics of improving data comparability of AEPs and VEPs may be a challenge in clinical settings, it is much more approachable in animal models to measure AEPs and VEPs as simultaneously as possible. Five cats under dexmedetomidine sedation received five, 10-min blocks of isoflurane with varying concentrations while click-evoked AEPs and flash-evoked VEPs were recorded from subdermal electrodes. We found that, in terms of their waveforms, (1) short-latency AEPs (BAERs) were the least affected while middle-latency AEPs were dramatically altered by isoflurane, and (2) short-latency VEPs was less persistent than that of short-latency AEPs, while both middle- and long-latency VEPs were largely suppressed by isoflurane and, in some cases, completely diminished. In addition, the signal strength in all but the middle-latency AEPs was significantly suppressed by isoflurane. We identified multiple AEP or VEP peak components demonstrating suppressed amplitudes and/or changed latencies by isoflurane. Overall, we confirmed that both cat AEPs and VEPs are affected during isoflurane anesthesia, as in humans.
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 | 0.000 | 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".