Field evaluation of the efficacy of tolfenamic acid administered in one single preoperative injection for the prevention of postoperative pain in the dog
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this randomized, placebo‐controlled, blinded field trial, 62 dogs (of which four were excluded) taken to a veterinary practice for orthopaedic surgery with a postoperative painful component were enrolled to assess the efficacy of a preoperative intramuscular injection of tolfenamic acid (TA) at a dose of 4 mg/kg in preventing postoperative pain. The animals were clinically examined at T1 + 1H, T1 + 4H, T1 + 24H (T1 = extubation). The efficacy results showed a statistical effect of TA in preventing postoperative pain with the evolution in the pain statistically in favour of TA treatment (Visual Analogue Scale). This was confirmed by the sum of the scores calculated at T1 + 24H that was statistically higher in the placebo group, and by the evolution in the respiratory rate, which was statistically lower in the TA‐treated animals after surgery. TA treatment was very well tolerated as no clinical sign (except one isolated case of vomiting and diarrhoea, i.e. 3.5%) or change in biochemical and haematological values was observed and as no interaction with the anaesthetic drugs and with marbofloxacin was reported.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".