MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1017122090 · doi:10.2478/acve-2014-0025

Clinical Observations and Safety Profile of Oral Herbal Products, Souroubea and Platanus Spp; a Pilot-Toxicology Study in Dogs

2014· article· en· W1017122090 on OpenAlexafffund
Pedro Villalobos, John P. Baker, Pablo Sanchez Vindas, Tony Durst, Aleksandar Mašić, John T. Arnason

Bibliographic record

VenueActa veterinaria · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytochemistry and Biological Activities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectPlaceboTraditional medicineBark (sound)ToxicityToxicologyPharmacologyBiologyInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This pilot-study evaluated the toxicity and safety profile of two herbal products Souroubea spp Botanical Blend (SSBB) and Platanus Tree Bark (PTB) after oral administration to dogs at elevated doses for 28 days. SSBB and PTB botanicals are the major active ingredients of Sin Susto™, a novel natural product for the treatment of anxiety in dogs. Three healthy female dogs were administered elevated doses of either SSBB, PTB or a placebo and then monitored for the occurrence of any systemic and local adverse events. Data from this pilot-study revealed that SSBB and PTB had no untoward effects on the health of dogs and were deemed safe which enabled the design and execution of a larger controlled target safety and toxicology study for Sin Susto™.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa veterinariaSame topicPhytochemistry and Biological ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207