Blood Pressure, Heart Rate, and Urinary Catecholamines in Healthy Dogs Subjected to Different Clinical Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Correct interpretation of blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) recordings is important in a clinical environment, but little is known about effects of stress on BP and HR responses of dogs to different clinical settings. OBJECTIVE: To investigate BP and HR responses in different clinical settings in dogs of 3 breeds, and to relate findings to urinary catecholamine concentrations measured by ELISA assays previously validated for use in human plasma and urine, after validation for use in dogs. ANIMALS: Client-owned healthy dogs; 41 Labrador Retrievers, 33 Cavalier King Charles Spaniels (CKCS), and 15 Dachshunds. METHODS: Prospective observational study. BP and HR were measured in 4 clinical settings with or without veterinarian and owner present. Urine samples were taken before and after examination. ELISA assays were validated for canine urine, and epinephrine/creatinine and norepinephrine/creatinine ratios were analyzed. RESULTS: BP and HR were higher when measured by veterinarian alone than when owner was present (P < .020). Urinary catecholamine/creatinine ratios were higher after examination, compared with before, in all dogs (P < .0001). Labrador Retrievers had lower diastolic BP than Dachshunds in 2 settings (P ≤ .041), lower HR than CKCSs in 3 settings (all P < .0001), and lower catecholamine/creatinine ratios after examination than both other breeds (P ≤ .035). The in-house validation showed mean spiked recovery of 96.5% for epinephrine and 83.8% for norepinephrine. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: BP and HR responses were related to breed as well as clinical setting. Breed differences were detected in urinary catecholamine/creatinine ratios. Further studies on breed differences are warranted.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".