Gastrointestinal perforation in five dogs associated with the administration of meloxicam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".