An evaluation of the use of ronidazole for the treatment of Tritrichomonas foetus in cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PICO question
 In cats infected with Tritrichomonas foetus, does treatment with oral ronidazole compared to an alternative antiprotozoal treatment or placebo result in successful resolution of clinical signs and eradication of disease?
 Clinical bottom line
 Ronidazole use appears to be efficacious in eradicating infection with Tritrichomonas foetus and resolving diarrhoea associated with infection. A dose range of 30–50 mg/kg 12–24 hourly has been suggested, with evidence suggesting that a dose of 30 mg/kg 24 hourly for 14 days may be effective. However, some cats may require higher doses and some may not respond to treatment, and relapse may occur during a protracted period following completion of the treatment course. Neurological side effects appear to be uncommon but may occur with doses of 30 mg/kg and above.
 A total of six studies are reviewed: Three randomised, controlled studies, one cohort study and two case series (one retrospective). Findings indicate efficacy of ronidazole treatment in eradicating infection and resolving diarrhoea, however many studies involved small sample sizes and limited follow-up. Therefore, evidence to support the use of ronidazole in Tritrichomonas foetus infected cats remains relatively limited.
 
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".