The effects of 1% prednisolone acetate on pupil diameter and intraocular pressure in healthy dogs treated with 0.005% latanoprost
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prostaglandin analogs contribute to blood-aqueous barrier breakdown and may exacerbate uveitis. As these analogs induce de novo synthesis of endogenous prostaglandins, their therapeutic, hypotensive effect could potentially be inhibited by anti-inflammatory treatment. We therefore evaluated whether topical 1% prednisolone acetate alters the effects of 0.005% latanoprost on pupil diameter (PD) and intraocular pressure (IOP). ANIMALS STUDIED: Ten healthy Labrador retriever dogs from the Israel Guide Dog Center for the Blind. METHODS: Pupil diameter and IOP 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 during four sessions: (1) without treatment (n = 10), (2) following latanoprost treatment (n = 10) at 8 AM, (3) following prednisolone treatment (n = 7) at 8 AM, and (4) bilateral latanoprost treatment at 8 AM, prednisolone treatment in TE at 11 AM (n = 8). The different number of dogs in sessions 3 and 4 is because some dogs were matched with their new owners earlier than expected. RESULTS: Pupil diameters were not affected by the addition of prednisolone and, at 4 PM, were 3.82 ± 0.47 and 3.97 ± 0.36 mm in TE and CE, respectively (P = 0.175, Wilcoxon). IOPs were not affected by the addition of prednisolone and, at 4 PM, were 9.0 ± 0.8 and 9.3 ± 0.8 mm Hg in TE and CE, respectively (P = 0.339, Wilcoxon). CONCLUSION: Prednisolone did not alter latanoprost's miotic and hypotensive effects in normal dogs during this study period.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it