MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1564457161 · doi:10.1002/ddr.21261

Characterization and Validation of a Canine Pruritic Model

2015· article· en· W1564457161 on OpenAlexaff
Gunnar Åberg, Nada Arulnesan, Gordon T. Bolger, Vincent B. Ciofalo, Kresimir Pucaj

Bibliographic record

VenueDrug Development Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalNucro Technics
FundersZoetis
KeywordsBeagleMedicinePharmacologyAntipruriticDrugPrednisolonePlaceboPharmacodynamicsDermatologyPharmacokineticsInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preclinical Research The mechanisms mediating canine pruritus are poorly understood with few models due to limited methods for inducing pruritus in dogs. Chloroquine (CQ) is a widely used antimalarial drug that causes pruritus in humans and mice. We have developed a canine model of pruritus where CQ reliably induced pruritus in all dogs tested following intravenous administration. This model is presently being used to test antipruritic activity of drug candidate molecules. This publication has been validated in a blinded cross-over study in eight beagle dogs using the reference standards, oclacitinib and prednisolone, and has been used to test a new compound, norketotifen. All compounds reduced CQ-induced pruritus in the dog. The sensitivity of the model was demonstrated using norketotifen, which at three dose levels, dose-dependently, inhibited scratching events compared with placebo.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrug Development ResearchSame topicDermatology and Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207