Effects of ranitidine, famotidine, pantoprazole, and omeprazole on intragastric pH in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify the normal gastric acid secretion profile in dogs and determine the degree of gastric acid suppression associated with 4 gastric acid suppressants. ANIMALS: 12 healthy Beagles. PROCEDURE: Intragastric pH was measured continuously for 24-hour periods with a digital recording system placed via a gastrostomy tube. Baseline measurements were obtained when food was withheld and when dogs were fed a standard diet. Dogs were then treated with ranitidine (2 mg/kg, IV, q 12 h), famotidine (0.5 mg/kg, IV, q 12 h), pantoprazole (1 mg/kg, IV, q 24 h), omeprazole (1 mg/kg, PO, q 24 h), or saline solution for 7 days; intragastric pH was recorded on days 0, 2, and 6. Subsequently, the effects of administering famotidine (0.5 mg/kg, IV, q 8 h; 6 dogs) and omeprazole as a suspension (1 mg/kg, PO, q 12 h; 6 dogs) were evaluated. Median 24-hour intragastric pH, percentage of time pH was > or = 3, and percentage of time pH was > or = 4 were determined. RESULTS: Median pH, percentage of time pH was > or = 3, and percentage of time pH was > or = 4 were all significantly higher when food was withheld than when dogs were fed. Famotidine, pantoprazole, and omeprazole significantly suppressed gastric acid secretion, compared with saline solution, as determined on the basis of median 24-hour pH and percentages of time pH was > or = 3 or > or = 4. However, ranitidine did not. Omeprazole suspension suppressed gastric acid secretion. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggest that in healthy dogs, famotidine, pantoprazole, and omeprazole significantly suppress gastric acid secretion. Twice daily administration of a suspension of omeprazole, was the only regimen tested that approached the potential therapeutic efficacy for acid-related disease when assessed by criteria used for human patients.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".