Evaluation of the clinical efficacy of marbofloxacin (Zeniquin) tablets for the treatment of canine pyoderma: an open clinical trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy and field safety of marbofloxacin (Zeniquin) for the treatment of superficial and deep bacterial pyoderma were evaluated. Seventy-two dogs were treated with 2.75 mg kg-1 of marbofloxacin orally once daily for 21 or 28 days. Sixty-two dogs (86%) had superficial pyoderma and 10 (14%) had deep pyoderma. A history of prior pyoderma was reported in 39/72 dogs. Pretreatment aerobic bacteriologic cultures of skin lesions were performed in 47 cases and the predominant pathogen isolated was Staphylococcus intermedius. Treatment was successful in 62/72 (86.1%) dogs, improvement was noted in 6/72 (8.3%) dogs and treatment failed in 4/72 (5.6%) dogs. Adverse effects associated with treatment included listlessness, anorexia, vomiting, soft stool, flatulence and polydipsia; these adverse effects were seen in only 6/81 dogs. Marbofloxacin was safe and effective for the treatment of superficial and deep pyoderma in dogs at the dosage used in this study.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it