Comparison of Short- versus Long-Course Antimicrobial Therapy of Uncomplicated Bacterial Pneumonia in Dogs: A Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current treatment for canine bacterial pneumonia relies on protracted courses of antimicrobials (3-6 weeks or more) with recommendations to continue for 1-2 weeks past resolution of all clinical and thoracic radiographic abnormalities. However, in humans, bacterial pneumonia is often treated with 5-10-day courses of antimicrobials, and thoracic radiographs are not considered useful to guide therapeutic duration. The primary study objective was to determine whether a short course of antimicrobials would be sufficient to treat canine bacterial pneumonia. Eight dogs with uncomplicated bacterial pneumonia were enrolled in this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study comparing clinical and radiographic resolution with differing durations of antimicrobial therapy. Dogs received a course of antimicrobials lasting 10 (A10) or 21 (A21) days. Dogs randomized to the A10 group received placebo for 11 days following antimicrobial therapy. Patients were evaluated at presentation and 10, 30 and 60 days after the initiation of antimicrobials. At 10 days, 6/8 dogs had resolution of both clinical signs and inflammatory leukogram, and 5/8 dogs had improved global radiographic scores. After 60 days, clinical and hematologic resolution of pneumonia was noted in all dogs regardless of antimicrobial therapy duration; however, 3/8 dogs had persistent radiographic lesions. Thoracic radiographs do not appear to be a reliable marker to guide antimicrobial therapy in canine bacterial pneumonia as radiographic lesions may lag or persist despite clinical cure. This pilot study suggests a 10-day course of antimicrobials may be sufficient to treat uncomplicated canine bacterial pneumonia.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".