Comparison of efficacy and safety of paste formulations of firocoxib and phenylbutazone in horses with naturally occurring osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy and safety of paste formulations of firocoxib and phenylbutazone in horses with naturally occurring osteoarthritis. DESIGN: Randomized controlled clinical trial. ANIMALS: 253 client-owned horses with naturally occurring osteoarthritis. PROCEDURES: Horses were treated with firocoxib (0.1 mg/kg [0.045 mg/lb], PO, q 24 h) or phenylbutazone (4.4 mg/kg [2 mg/lb], PO, q 24 h) for 14 days. Physical examinations and lameness evaluations were performed prior to treatment and after 7 and 14 days. Clinical improvement was defined as a reduction of at least 1 lameness grade or a combined reduction of at least 3 points in scores for pain during manipulation or palpation, joint swelling, joint circumference, and range of motion. RESULTS: Proportion of horses clinically improved on day 14 for the firocoxib group (104/123 [84.6%]) was not significantly different from the proportion for the phenylbutazone group (103/119 [86.6%]). Proportion of horses that were improved on day 14 was significantly greater for horses treated with firocoxib than for horses treated with phenylbutazone with regard to score for pain on manipulation or palpation (P = 0.028), joint circumference score (P = 0.026), and range of motion score (P = 0.012), but not for overall lameness score or joint swelling score. No direct treatment-related adverse effects were detected during the study. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggested that overall clinical efficacy of a paste formulation of firocoxib in horses with naturally occurring osteoarthritis was comparable to efficacy of a paste formulation of phenylbutazone.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".