Endoscopic evaluation of the gastroduodenal mucosa to determine the safety of short-term concurrent administration of meloxicam and dexamethasone in healthy dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety, with respect to the development of gastric ulcers and erosions, of concurrent administration of meloxicam and dexamethasone for 3 days to healthy dogs. ANIMALS: 20 conditioned purpose-bred research Beagles. PROCEDURE: Seven days prior to treatment, dogs were anesthetized for endoscopic evaluation of the upper portion of the gastrointestinal tract (ie, the gastric and duodenal mucosa). Five regions of the gastroduodenal area were scored by 2 investigators. Dogs were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment groups as follows: saline-saline, dexamethasone-saline, saline-meloxicam, and dexamethasone-meloxicam groups. On days 1, 2, and 3, dogs received either dexamethasone or saline (0.9% NaCl) solution injections SC twice daily. On days 2, 3, and 4, dogs received either meloxicam or saline solution injections SC once daily. On day 2, dogs were anesthetized for a sham surgery (ie, electrostimulation). On day 5, the gastroduodenal area of each dog was reevaluated by use of endoscopic evaluation and histologic examination of biopsy specimens. RESULTS: The total endoscopic score of the dexamethasone-meloxicam group was significantly greater than the scores of the other groups. The dexamethasone-saline group had a mean cumulative score that was significantly greater than the saline-meloxicam or saline-saline groups. Endoscopic scores of the saline-meloxicam group were not significantly different from scores of the saline-saline group. No significant differences in histologic findings were found between groups. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In healthy dogs, meloxicam appears to be safe with regard to adverse effects on the gastrointestinal tract. Concurrent administration of dexamethasone and meloxicam is more likely to cause gastric erosions than meloxicam administration alone.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".