Systemic absorption and adverse ocular and systemic effects after topical ophthalmic administration of 0.1% diclofenac to healthy cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To quantify plasma concentrations and determine adverse ocular, renal, or hepatic effects associated with repeated topical ophthalmic application of 0.1% diclofenac to healthy cats. ANIMALS: 8 healthy sexually intact male cats. PROCEDURES: A randomized, placebo-controlled crossover study was conducted. A topical formulation of 0.1% diclofenac was administered 4 times/d for 7 days to 4 cats, and artificial tear (control) solution was administered to the other 4 cats. After a 12-day washout period, cats received the other treatment. Ophthalmic examinations were performed daily. Plasma samples were obtained on days 1 and 7 for pharmacokinetic analysis. A CBC, serum biochemical analysis, urinalysis, determination of urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, and determination of glomerular filtration rate were performed before the start of the study and after each 7-day treatment period. RESULTS: Mild conjunctival hyperemia was the only adverse ocular effect detected. Maximal drug concentration and area under the curve were significantly higher on day 7 than on day 1. Diclofenac-treated cats had a significantly lower glomerular filtration rate than did control-treated cats after the second but not after the first treatment period, presumably associated with iatrogenic hypovolemia. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Topical ophthalmic administration of 0.1% diclofenac was well tolerated in healthy cats, with only mild signs of ocular irritation. Detectable systemic concentrations of diclofenac were achieved with accumulation over 7 days. Systemic absorption of diclofenac may be associated with reduced glomerular filtration rate, particularly in volume-contracted animals. Topical ophthalmic 0.1% diclofenac should be used with caution in volume-contracted or systemically ill cats.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".