Is it necessary to wait several minutes between applications of different topical ophthalmic solutions? A preliminary study with tropicamide eye drops in healthy dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of topical tropicamide when placed at different time intervals before or after a saline drop. ANIMALS STUDIED: Eight healthy Labrador and golden retriever dogs. PROCEDURES: The effect of 1% tropicamide on pupillary diameter (PD) was measured over 240 min when administered alone (control) and then 1 and 5 min prior to, or following, application of a saline drop, with 1-week washout between each of the five trials. Data were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA and Tukey post hoc test. RESULTS: Only 6/110 pairwise comparisons among the 5 trials were statistically significant (p ≤ .035), with post-hoc analysis showing no significant differences (p ≥ .14) between the overall means of all trials. In all five trials, maximal PD was reached 30 min after tropicamide application and maintained until 210 min for 180 min (p = .0005). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that waiting 1 min between applications of different ophthalmic solutions may be sufficient for maximal drug effect. Care should be taken when extrapolating these results to other species and different ophthalmic formulations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".