MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Gastrointestinal perforation in five dogs associated with the administration of meloxicam

2006· article· en· W2033838873 on OpenAlexaff
Trevor B. Enberg, L Braun, Alan B. Kuzma

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInflammatory mediators and NSAID effects
Canadian institutionsCARE Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeloxicamVomitingNauseaPerforationMelenaPeritonitisAbdominal painAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective: Five canine cases of gastrointestinal (GI) perforation and septic peritonitis associated with the routine use of meloxicam are reviewed. Series summary: Selective cyclooxygenase‐2 (COX‐2) non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are being used more extensively and routinely for acute and chronic pain as well as for perioperative management of pain. These medications are safe and effective but can be associated with known GI and renal side effects. The patients in this case series had no significant concurrent illness, were not on any concurrent medication known to potentiate the ulcerogenic effects of NSAIDs, and in most cases did not display clinical signs that were apparent to the owners until the time of perforation. New or unique information provided: Despite the preferential selectivity for COX‐2, newer NSAIDs still carry the risk of GI performation. The incidence of GI perforation may be increased with inappropriate dosing regimens, with use of non‐veterinary products and in animals that are at high risk for toxicity. Early signs of toxicity may include alteration in appetite, and subtle signs of nausea during treatment. Warning owners to monitor their pet for vomiting, melena, and hematemesis may not be sufficient to avoid the potential disastrous consequences of GI ulceration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations68
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical CareSame topicInflammatory mediators and NSAID effectsFrench-language works237,207