Effects of topical administration of 1% brinzolamide on normal cat eyes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of short-term daily topical administration of 1% brinzolamide on the intraocular pressure (IOP) of healthy domestic cats with normotensive eyes and to assess the potential for negative side effects of drug administration. ANIMALS: Twelve privately owned adult domestic cats without physical or ocular abnormalities. PROCEDURE: Normal variation in IOP was determined on day 1. Cats were then treated on days 2-8 with a topical placebo (artificial tear solution) OU q 12 h. On days 9-15 the cats were treated q 12 h with 1% brinzolamide in one randomly selected eye and the placebo in the contralateral eye. All medications (drug and placebo) were administered twice daily at 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. On days 16-22 the cats received no topical medications. IOP, horizontal pupil size in mm and assessment of conjunctival hyperemia were noted OU on days 1, 8, 15 and 22 at 5 time points (9 a.m., 11 a.m., 1 p.m., 3 p.m. and 5 p.m.). Mixed linear regression models were used to compare the IOP of each eye at all time periods for each cat, controlling for age and weight. RESULTS: Mean IOP was not significantly altered in any eye at any time point during the treatment period compared with pretreatment, baseline, or follow-up evaluations. Conjunctival hyperemia and miosis were not detected in either eye at any time point. Conclusions and clinical relevance Short-term q 12 h administration of 1% brinzolamide did not significantly reduce IOP in this small sample population of normotensive cats under these study conditions. No clinically relevant side effects were noted with brinzolamide administration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".