Efeitos colaterais da ranitidina aplicada em dose terapêutica em cães saudáveis Adverse effects of ranitidine applied in therapeutic dosage in healthy dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O objetivo deste trabalho foi verificar se a dose de ranitidina 2mg kg-1, aplicada via intravenosa, causa êmese ou hipotensão em cães saudáveis. Foram selecionados 10 cães da raça Retriever do Labrador, 10 da raça Beagle e 10 cães sem raça definida, sendo cinco animais de cada sexo. Os animais foram submetidos ao exame clínico e à avaliação da pressão sanguínea antes da aplicação do fármaco e também 10 minutos e quatro horas após a administração deste. Após a aplicação, observou-se que 13,3% dos animais apresentaram-se normais; 6,7% dos cães apresentaram apatia; 50% dos animais apresentaram salivação e 30% apresentaram apatia, salivação, mímica de vômito ou êmese. Não houve diminuição significativa da pressão arterial após a administração do fármaco. Conclui-se que o uso de ranitidina na dose terapêutica, aplicada via intravenosa, pode provocar apatia, salivação, mímica de vômito e êmese. The purpose of this study was to verify if the ranitidine dosage of 2mg kg-1 by intravenous path causes emesis or hypotension in healthy dogs. They were selected 10 Labrador Retriever, 10 Beagles and 10 mongrel dogs, five animals of each sex. The animals were submitted to clinical examination and blood pressure evaluation before ranitidine administration and also 10 minutes and 4 hours after administration of it. After administration was observed that 13.3% of the animals presented normal; 6.7% of the dogs presented apathy; 50% of the animals presented salivation and 30% presented apathy, salivation, emesis mimic or emesis. There was no significative arterial blood pressure decrease after ranitidine administration. It was concluded that ranitidine useful in therapeutic dosage by intravenous path may provoke apathy, salivation, emesis mimic and emesis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".