Effects of orally administered gabapentin, tramadol, and meloxicam on ocular variables in healthy dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of gabapentin, tramadol, and meloxicam on tear production, intraocular pressure (IOP), pupillary diameter, tear break-up time, and corneal touch threshold in healthy dogs when given orally for 3 days. ANIMALS: 9 healthy research Beagles. PROCEDURES: A randomized, blinded, case-crossover study with a 6-sequence, 3-treatment, and 3-period design was performed. A 7-day acclimation period was followed by 3 treatment phases, each with a 3-day treatment period followed by a 7-day washout period for 3 different drugs. Block randomization was used to group dogs for treatments with drug A (gabapentin), B (tramadol), or C (meloxicam). Measurements of tear production, IOP, pupillary diameter, tear break-up time, and corneal touch threshold were performed on a schedule. A generalized mixed-effects linear regression model was created for each ocular variable, accounting for repeated measures within individuals. RESULTS: Intraocular pressure was the only variable to have differed substantially between the first 5 and last 2 days of the acclimation period. When treatment phase, day, time of day, dog identification, baseline value, and eye were accounted for, the mean IOP was lower for dogs during treatment phases with gabapentin or tramadol, compared with meloxicam, but this difference was not considered clinically meaningful. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results indicated that a minimum 5-day acclimation period is necessary for IOP measurements to return to baseline in dogs. The statistically identified effect of gabapentin and tramadol on IOP in dogs of the present study warrants further investigation. It is possible that at higher dosages, or in dogs with glaucoma, this effect may become clinically significant.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".