Effect of Anticholinergics (Atropine, Glycopyrrolate) and Prokinetics (Metoclopramide, Cisapride) on Gastric Motility in Beagles and Labrador Retrievers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of atropine, glycopyrrolate, metoclopramide and cisapride on the antral motility was investigated in eight dogs (four Beagles and four Labradors) using passive telemetry. Both anticholinergics induced a pronounced and lasting reduction of the intensity and frequency of the contractions. A definite dose-related inhibition of the antral motility was seen in Beagles, similar for both active substances. Low doses of atropine (0.02 mg/kg BW i.m.) and glycopyrrolate (0.005 mg/kg BW i.m.) completely inhibited the gastric motility for at least 30 min, whereas higher doses (0.04 or 0.01 mg/kg BW) caused a cessation of activity for more than 3 h. In Labradors, the effects of both active substances were not so dose related and the effect of glycopyrrolate lasted at least 6 h, whereas the effect of atropine gradually decreased after 3 h. A distinct breed difference regarding the effect of the two prokinetics on the antral motility was also observed. In Beagles, the prokinetics, at a low dose (metoclopramide 0.3 mg/kg BW, cisapride 0.2 mg/kg BW), resulted in a significant increase in the amplitude integral. Higher doses (metoclopramide 0.6 mg/kg BW, cisapride 0.5 mg/kg BW) also increased the integrals of the pressure profiles, but significantly less than with the lower doses. In Labradors, both medications, mainly at higher doses, resulted in an increase of the contraction amplitudes. The low dose had no (cisapride) or only a transient effect (metoclopramide). The frequency of the antral contractions was not at all influenced by cisapride, and only in Beagles metoclopramide resulted in a dose-related increase. It is not clear if the different results in Labradors and Beagles are because of breed or body weight.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".