Prospective clinical trial evaluating spironolactone in Doberman pinschers with congestive heart failure due to dilated cardiomyopathy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: Whether the aldosterone antagonist spironolactone has beneficial survival effects in dogs with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is not known. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the effect of spironolactone, when added to conventional therapy, on survival time in Doberman pinschers with congestive heart failure (CHF) due to DCM. ANIMALS: Sixty-seven client-owned Doberman pinschers with CHF due to DCM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The trial design was prospective, randomized, blinded, and placebo controlled. Dogs were randomized to receive 50-75 mg of spironolactone twice daily (n = 34) or a placebo (n = 33), in addition to standard CHF therapy. Follow-up visits were targeted every one-six weeks until endpoint. Quality-of-life questionnaire and physical examination were performed at every visit, while renal biochemistry, ECG, echocardiography, and thoracic radiography were reassessed as needed. The primary endpoint was time to cardiac death, defined as death or euthanasia from CHF or sudden death. RESULTS: Median time to primary endpoint in the spironolactone group (183 days) was not statistically significantly different than that for the placebo group (124 days) (P = 0.254). The development of atrial fibrillation (AF) was significantly less frequent in the spironolactone group (n = 7) than the placebo group (n = 15, P = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: While median time to cardiac death in the spironolactone group was not statistically significantly different than that in the placebo group, adding spironolactone to conventional therapy resulted in reduced occurrence of AF.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".