Safety and efficacy of an ocular insert for apomorphine-induced emesis in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of an ocular insert designed to provide controlled release of apomorphine for the induction of emesis in dogs. ANIMALS: 5,001 dogs treated with ocular apomorphine inserts and 32 dogs treated with IV administration of apomorphine. PROCEDURES: Data collected on a case report form included breed, body weight, time to emesis after placement of the insert, and any information available regarding the nature of the toxicosis and clinical signs. A list of potential adverse effects was provided, and attending clinicians graded their occurrence by use of a subjective scale. Similar report forms were used for dogs that received apomorphine IV. Treatment was considered successful if emesis occurred within 15 minutes of administration. Safety was assessed by evaluation of the frequency and severity of adverse effects. RESULTS: For the ocular insert and IV injection groups, the success rates were 83.5% and 90.6% respectively, and were not significantly different. Adverse effects were more frequent in the IV group, whereas ocular irritation was most frequent in the insert group. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Overall, the ocular inserts provided an alternative to parenteral administration of apomorphine with comparable efficacy and a lower prevalence of adverse effects.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".