Comparison of efficacy and tolerability of isoflupredone and dexamethasone in the treatment of horses affected with recurrent airway obstruction (‘heaves’)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Corticosteroids are currently the most effective drugs for the control of 'heaves' in horses. However, there is limited information concerning the comparative efficacy and tolerability of the various corticosteroids when used for treatment. OBJECTIVES: To compare the therapeutic and side effects of isoflupredone acetate to those of dexamethasone. METHODS: A parallel design to compare the effects of 2 corticosteroids by evaluating lung function, serum cortisol and electrolyte concentrations, response to ACTH stimulation and haematology sequentially during a 14 day control period (no treatment), followed by 14 day treatment with either isoflupredone acetate (0.03 mg/kg i.m. s.i.d., n = 6) or dexamethasone (0.04 mg/kg i.v. s.i.d., n = 6) and 7 days of wash-out. RESULTS: Both drugs were well tolerated clinically and resulted in a significant improvement in lung function that started on Day 3 and lasted for the treatment and wash-out periods. Blood cortisol levels were significantly decreased during the treatment period in both groups of horses, but a normal response to ACTH stimulation was preserved. Serum electrolytes concentration of horses receiving dexamethasone was not affected by the treatment, but horses treated with isoflupredone demonstrated a significant decrease in serum potassium level. Both treatments induced stress changes in haematology. CONCLUSIONS AND POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: Isoflupredone is as effective as dexamethasone in the treatment of 'heaves'-affected horses but associated with hypokalaemia. Even if clinical signs of hypokalaemia were not observed, this is a side effect that deserves further investigation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".