Evaluation of dirlotapide for sustained weight loss in overweight Labrador retrievers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of dirlotapide on body weight (BW) reduction were investigated in overweight Labradors in two parallel-design studies. Study A involved 42 dogs randomized to 0.0, 0.025, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2 or 0.4 mg dirlotapide/kg/day orally for 4 weeks. Study B involved 72 dogs randomized to nine treatments: placebo (24 weeks); dirlotapide (24 weeks) followed by placebo (28 weeks); or dirlotapide (52 weeks); on diets containing 5%, 10% or 15% fat. Dirlotapide dose (initially 0.1 mg/kg) was adjusted monthly during 24-week weight-loss and subsequent 28-week weight-stabilization phases. Food was offered above maintenance energy requirements (MERx 1.1-1.2) based on initial BW. Body composition (body fat, lean tissue and bone mineral content) was monitored using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. After treatment, dogs that had received dirlotapide for 52 weeks were fed 90% of quantity consumed at week 52. In study A, BW and food intake decreased asymptotically with dose: mean weekly weight loss exceeded 1% at 0.1-0.4 mg/kg. In study B, dirlotapide resulted in significant mean weekly weight loss (>0.8%) and decreased food intake over 24 weeks compared with placebo (P = 0.0001) for all diets. Food restriction minimized post-treatment weight rebound. Dirlotapide administered daily to dogs for up to 52 weeks was clinically safe and resulted in sustained weight reduction.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".