The effects of topical parasympatholytic drugs on pupil diameter and intraocular pressure in healthy dogs treated with 0.005% latanoprost
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prostaglandin analogs induce miosis and lower intraocular pressure (IOP). As pupils of latanoprost-treated eyes may have to be dilated for ophthalmoscopy or intraocular surgery, we studied whether 0.5% tropicamide or 1% atropine alter the effects of 0.005% latanoprost on pupil diameter (PD) and IOP in healthy dogs. METHODS: IOP and PD were measured hourly, 8 AM-4 PM, with the right and left eyes serving as control (CE) and treated (TE) eyes, respectively. Measurements were conducted in ten Labrador retrievers with one-week washout: (i) baseline values, (ii) latanoprost at 8 AM, (iii) tropicamide at 8 AM, (iv) latanoprost at 8 AM and tropicamide at 11 AM, and (v) latanoprost at 8 AM and atropine at 11 AM (n = 4). RESULTS: At 4 PM, TE PD was 5.88 ± 0.59, 3.62 ± 0.66, 6.33 ± 1.00, 5.42 ± 0.57, and 8.12 ± 1.24 mm in sessions 1-5, respectively. TE PD was significantly different between treatment sessions 2, 4, and 5 (P = 0.018, Friedman), being most mydriatic in session 5. At 4 PM, TE IOP was 11.27 ± 2.07, 7.10 ± 1.07, 11.1 ± 2.21, 7.70 ± 1.85, and 8.87 ± 1.42 mm Hg in sessions 1-5, respectively, with no differences between treatment sessions 2, 4, and 5 (P = 0.105, Friedman). CONCLUSIONS: Tropicamide and atropine counteracted latanoprost's miotic effect, with atropine causing significantly larger mydriasis, sufficient for indirect ophthalmoscopy. Neither drug counteracted the hypotensive effect of latanoprost during this study period. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the potential risks in glaucomatous dogs.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".