Owner evaluation of quality of life and mobility in osteoarthritic cats treated with amantadine or placebo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives The aim of the study was to determine if amantadine improves owner-identified mobility impairment and quality of life associated with osteoarthritis in cats. Methods Using a blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized, crossover design, 13 healthy client-owned cats with clinical and radiographic evidence of osteoarthritis and owner-identified mobility impairment were studied. Cats received 5 mg/kg amantadine or placebo q24h PO for 3 weeks each with no washout period in between. Locomotor activity was continuously assessed with a collar-mounted activity monitor system, and owners chose and rated two mobility-impaired activities using a client-specific outcome measures (CSOM) questionnaire on a weekly basis. Locomotor activity on the third treatment week was analyzed with two-tailed paired t -tests. The CSOM scores were analyzed using a mixed-effect model and the Bonferroni post-hoc test. Owner-perceived changes in quality of life were compared between treatments using the χ 2 test. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. Results Mean ± SD activity counts during the third week of each treatment were significantly lower with amantadine (240,537 ± 53,880) compared with placebo (326,032 ± 91,759). CSOM scores assigned by the owners were significantly better with amantadine on the second (3 ± 1) and third (3 ± 1) weeks compared with placebo (5 ± 2 and 5 ± 1, respectively). A significantly greater proportion of owners reported improvement in quality of life with amantadine compared with placebo. Conclusions and relevance Amantadine significantly decreased activity, but improved owner-identified impaired mobility and owner-perceived quality of life in cats with osteoarthritis. Amantadine appears to be an option for the symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis in cats.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".