Clinical evaluation of a nutraceutical, carprofen and meloxicam for the treatment of dogs with osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy, tolerance and ease of administration of a nutraceutical, carprofen or meloxicam were evaluated in a prospective, double-blind study on 71 dogs with osteoarthritis. The client-owned dogs were randomly assigned to one of the three treatments or to a placebo control group. The influence of osteoarthritis on the dogs' gait was described by comparing the ground reaction forces of the arthritic dogs and 10 normal dogs. Before the treatments began, and 30 and 60 days later, measurements were made of haematological and biochemical variables and of the ground reaction forces of the arthritic limb, and subjective assessments were made by the owners and by the orthopaedic surgeons. Changes in the ground reaction forces were specific to the arthritic joint, and were significantly improved by carprofen and meloxicam but not by the nutraceutical; the values returned to normal only with meloxicam. The orthopaedic surgeons assessed that there had been an improvement with carprofen and meloxicam, but the owners considered that there had been an improvement only with meloxicam. The blood and faecal analyses did not reveal any changes. The treatments were well tolerated, except for a case of hepatopathy in a dog treated with carprofen.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".