Effect of doxepin on quality of life in Labradors with laryngeal paralysis: A double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laryngeal paralysis commonly affects older Labrador retrievers. Currently, dogs with severe disease require surgical intervention, most commonly arytenoid lateralization. Anecdotally, doxepin has been proposed to help dogs with laryngeal paralysis. HYPOTHESIS: Doxepin will improve quality of life measures assessed by owners of Labrador retrievers with laryngeal paralysis not requiring emergency surgery. ANIMALS: Twenty-two Labrador retrievers with laryngeal paralysis. METHODS: Dogs were randomized to receive doxepin (3-5 mg/kg q12h PO) or placebo for 28 days. Owners completed quality-of-life assessments before and after completing the study. Data were compared between groups using Rank-Sum tests or Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: The 2 groups of dogs did not differ at baseline except for owner-perceived degree of ataxia (owners of dogs receiving doxepin considered them more ataxic than owners of dogs receiving placebo). After 28 days, owner-assessed quality of life measures did not differ between dogs receiving doxepin or placebo (dogs worsening: doxepin = 2, placebo = 1; dogs unchanged: doxepin = 6, placebo = 7; dogs improved: doxepin = 4, placebo = 2; P = .84). Dogs receiving placebo had a greater improvement in client-assessed overall health than dogs receiving doxepin (mean ranks: doxepin = 4.36, placebo = 6.64; P = .04). The study was terminated at this interim analysis. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Doxepin did not appear to improve any measures of owner-assessed quality of life in Labrador retrievers with laryngeal paralysis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".