Failure of intravenous flumazenil to antagonize alfaxalone anesthesia in cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives The aim of the present study was to assess the gamma-aminobutyric acid type A (GABA A ) receptor antagonist flumazenil and its effect on the anesthetic activity of the GABA A receptor agonist alfaxalone when administered intravenously in cats. Methods A prospective, randomized, blinded, two-period two-treatment crossover study was conducted. Eight (six male, two female) healthy adult neutered cats, 4.5–7.0 kg body weight, owned by IndyVet Emergency and Specialty Hospital were enrolled. Cats were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups, flumazenil or saline (period 1). During period 2, cats were administered the opposite treatment. Treatment was either 0.1 mg/kg flumazenil or an equal volume of 0.9% sodium chloride. Before treatment, a published, abbreviated alfaxalone protocol was administered, consisting of an intravenous (IV) dose of 2 mg/kg over 1 min, followed by an abbreviated two-step IV alfaxalone infusion of 0.4 mg/kg/min for 10 mins, then 0.3 mg/kg/min for 30 mins. Physiologic parameters, time to lateral recumbency, sternal recumbency and standing, duration of anesthesia, quality of induction and maintenance of anesthesia, and quality of recovery were assessed. Results The treatment by time interaction was not significant for any variable. Pulse rate was significantly higher in the flumazenil group than the saline group (mean 176.01 vs 169.57; P = 0.0067). Conclusions and relevance Flumazenil administered at 0.1 mg/kg intravenously over 1 min did not antagonize the effects of alfaxalone in cats. Further investigations are required to investigate an appropriate dose or other drug to antagonize alfaxalone and its judicious use in clinical settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".