Randomized, placebo-controlled, 28-day safety and pharmacokinetics evaluation of repeated oral cannabidiol administration in healthy dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and pharmacokinetics of various doses of plant-derived cannabidiol (CBD) versus placebo following repeated oral administration. ANIMALS: 20 healthy adult Beagles. PROCEDURES: In a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial, dogs were randomized to 5 groups balanced in body weight and sex (n = 4 dogs/group) and received a CBD (1, 2, 4, or 12 mg/kg; from cannabis extract) or placebo oil formulation PO once daily for 28 days. Outcome variables were assessed through daily health observations, veterinary examinations, CBC, and serum biochemical analysis. Blood samples were collected at various time points to estimate 24-hour pharmacokinetic profiles of CBD and selected metabolites (7-carboxy-CBD and 7-hydroxy-CBD). RESULTS: Repeated CBD administration was well tolerated by dogs, with no clinically important changes in measured safety outcomes. Veterinary examinations revealed no clinically important abnormal findings. Adverse events were mild in severity. Relative to placebo administration, CBD administration at 12 mg/kg/d resulted in more gastrointestinal adverse events (mainly hypersalivation) and significantly higher serum alkaline phosphatase activity. Total systemic exposure to CBD increased on a dose-dependent basis following both acute (first dose) and chronic (28 days) administration. Within each CBD dose group, repeated administration increased total systemic exposure to CBD 1.6- to 3.3-fold. The 24-hour trough plasma CBD concentrations were also dose dependent, with a steady state reached following 2 weeks of administration. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Repeated, daily oral administration of the CBD formulation led to dose-dependent increases in total systemic exposure to CBD and 24-hour trough plasma concentrations in healthy dogs. These findings could help guide dose selection.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".