The impact of environmental and biological factors on the resting heart rate of dogs as assessed using 20 years of data from safety pharmacology studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A safety pharmacology study detects and evaluates potential side effects of a new drug on physiological function at therapeutic levels and above and, in most cases, prior to the initiation of clinical trials. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of environmental and biological factors on resting heart rate (HR), a representative cardiac parameter in cardiovascular safety pharmacology. METHODS: Over twenty years, 143 dogs (Beagles, Labradors and mongrels) received implanted telemetry transmitters to measure aortic pressure (AP), left ventricular pressure (LVP), Electrocardiogram (ECG) and body temperature. Throughout the 7-h period of data collection, data were continuously recorded without drug treatment and included the range of HRs resulting from spontaneous physiological changes. Statistics and visualizations were calculated using R and Spotfire. RESULTS: Beagles had a higher HR than the mongrels, while Labradors had a lower HR than mongrels. Labradors were found to have a sex-based difference in HR, with females having a higher HR. A higher HR was observed in young animals of all breeds when they were in contact with humans. The cage system affected the HR of Labradors and mongrels more than Beagles. Larger dogs (e.g. Labrador) have a lower HR than smaller dogs (Beagles). Animals that are younger were found to have more HR variability and have a higher HR than older animals. In addition, older animals reacted less to the application period and human interaction than younger animals. The HR response of animals inside a cage system may depend on the cage system in which they were bred. A familiar cage system typically has less impact on HR. DISCUSSION: This retrospective data base evaluation has demonstrated the impact of environmental and biological factors on cardiovascular parameters in the context of performing safety pharmacology studies. Breed, sex, age and the type of cage system used affected, at least in some cases, the HR and its variability. They should therefore be carefully considered when designing safety pharmacology studies to have the highest possible test sensitivity.
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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".