EVALUATION OF ETORPHINE-MEDETOMIDINE-MIDAZOLAMAZAPERONE FOR IMMOBILIZATION IN CAPTIVE PRONGHORN (ANTILOCAPRA AMERICANA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Etorphine based immobilization protocols are reported to be effective in pronghorn; however, information on cardiorespiratory effects is limited. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and cardiopulmonary effects of etorphine, medetomidine, midazolam, and azaperone for immobilization in captive pronghorn. Additionally, the effects of endotracheal intubation and manual ventilation on cardiopulmonary variables were assessed. A combination of 5 mg etorphine, 10 mg medetomidine, 2.5 mg midazolam, and 5 mg azaperone was administered by hand or via dart to 10 pronghorn. Five pronghorn were endotracheally intubated once recumbent and manually ventilated. Oxygen at a flow of 6 L/min was supplemented to all animals. Induction and recovery times were recorded, and during recumbency vital parameters and arterial blood samples were collected. Time to lateral recumbency was 3.8 ± 1.25 min. Marked hypoxemia and hypercapnia was observed in both spontaneously breathing and manually ventilated pronghorn. Hypercapnia improved significantly in manually ventilated pronghorn compared to spontaneously breathing animals. All pronghorn recovered rapidly after reversal with 150 mg naltrexone and 30 mg atipamezole. Administration of etorphine, medetomidine, midazolam, and azaperone resulted in excellent chemical immobilization in pronghorn. Significant hypoxemia and hypercapnia occurred and oxygen supplementation, endotracheal intubation, and manual ventilation is recommended.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".