Effects of 0.02% netarsudil ophthalmic solution on intraocular pressure of normotensive dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of QD or BID 0.02% netarsudil ophthalmic solution (Aerie Pharmaceuticals) on intraocular pressure (IOP) in normotensive dogs and to describe any adverse effects. ANIMALS STUDIED: Normotensive Labrador retriever dogs were included in this study: 10 received netarsudil in one eye and artificial tears in the contralateral eye QD, and 10 received netarsudil in one eye and artificial tears in the contralateral eye BID. PROCEDURES: Intraocular pressure curves were acquired over a 3-day acclimation period, 5-day dosing period (QD or BID-10 dogs/group), and 3-day recovery period. Toxicity was assessed daily using slit-lamp biomicroscopy and the semiquantitative preclinical ocular toxicology scoring system. RESULTS: Once-daily dosing did not lower IOP over the entire 5-day dosing period (95% CI 0.1 to -0.9 mm Hg, P = .20) or on the last day of dosing (95% CI 0.4 to -0.9 mm Hg, P = .65). Twice-daily dosing resulted in a statistically significant, but clinically unimportant, IOP reduction over the entire 5-day dosing period (-0.6 mm Hg; 95% CI 0.05 to -1.1 mm Hg, P = .02) and on the last day of dosing (-0.9 mm Hg; 95% CI 0.2 to -1.5 mm Hg, P = .003). Adverse events were limited to transient mild-to-moderate conjunctival hyperemia during the dosing phase in eyes receiving netarsudil vs control (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Netarsudil 0.02% ophthalmic solution twice daily resulted in a small, statistically significant, but clinically unimportant, IOP reduction in normotensive dogs. Future studies should investigate efficacy 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 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) | 0.001 | 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".