MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

EFFICACY OF GASTRIC ACID‐LOWERING THERAPY IN THE DOG

2004· article· en· W2094154160 on OpenAlexaff
AME Bersenas, KA Mathews

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHelicobacter pylori-related gastroenterology studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFamotidineOmeprazoleRanitidineBeagleSalinePlaceboGastroenterologyPantoprazoleGastric acidInternal medicineCrossover studyWashoutRandomized controlled trialAnesthesiaStomach

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Gastric acid suppression is a recommended therapy for gastric ulceration. Human studies suggest that optimal healing of duodenal ulcers occurs at gastric pH >3 for 75% of the day. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of 4 gastric acid suppressants at recommended veterinary doses. Drug effect was based on the 24‐hour median pH and the percentage of time that the intragastric pH ≥3 in a 24 hour period. Methods: The study was conducted in 12 healthy Beagle dogs and was a double‐blind, randomized, multiple cross‐over comparison of a placebo (saline IV q12 h), ranitidine 2 mg/kg IV q12 h, famotidine 0.5 mg/kg IV q12 h, pantoprazole 1 mg/kg IV q24 h, and omeprazole (unblinded) ∼1 mg/kg PO q24 h. Continuous 24‐hour intragastric pH measurements were obtained via PEG tube. Prior to drug testing, 24‐hour pH measurements were recorded in fasted and fed dogs. Thereafter, dogs were fed standardized meals throughout the remainder of the study period. Drugs were administered for 1 week with a one‐week washout period between tests. Data were obtained on Day 0 (baseline), Day 2 and Day 6 of treatment. Following the randomized study, famotidine 0.5 mg/kg IV q8 h and omeprazole ∼1 mg/kg + bicarbonate q12 h via PEG tube were evaluated in 6 dogs, respectively. Appropriate statistical analyses were applied to calculate the 24‐hour median pH and percentage of time that the test drug maintained intragastric pH≥3 over 24 hours. Results: The 24‐hour median pH of fasted dogs was 4.44 vs. fed dogs 1.30 (p<0.0001). The % time pH≥3: fasted dogs 66.0% vs. fed dogs 13.3% (p<0.0001). The 24‐hour median pH was (bold denotes significance when compared to saline) ‐ saline pH 1.81, ranitidine Day 2–pH 2.53, Day 6–pH 2.05, famotidine Day 2–pH 2.83, Day 6–pH 3.68, pantoprazole Day 2–pH 3.11, Day 6–pH 3.49, omeprazole Day 2–pH 3.86, Day 6–pH 4.09. The % time pH≥3: saline 32.9%; ranitidine day 2 – 44.6%, Day 6 – 37.2%; famotidine: Day 2 – 48.9%, Day 6 – 60.1%; pantoprazole: Day 2 – 54.2%, Day 6 – 59.1%; omeprazole: Day 2 – 66.9%, Day 6 – 70.2%. The 24‐hour median pH of omeprazole + bicarbonate q12 h was 4.7 on Day 2 and 4.9 on Day 6; the % time pH ≥3 was 90.9% on Day 2 and 78.4% on Day 6, respectively. No significant difference was noted in any parameter comparing famotidine q8 h and q12 h. Conclusions: Fasted dogs had a significantly higher pH than fed dogs. Omeprazole was the only drug tested that approached the potential therapeutic efficacy for healing of duodenal ulcers when assessed by criteria for human patients. Variation existed amongst dogs in all drugs tested.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical CareSame topicHelicobacter pylori-related gastroenterology studiesFrench-language works237,207