The effects of 1% prednisolone acetate on pupil diameter and intraocular pressure in healthy dogs treated with 0.005% latanoprost
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.
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".