Safety study of cannabidiol products in healthy dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tolerability of different cannabinoids given orally to dogs was evaluated in a randomized, non-blinded, negative controlled, parallel design 90-day repeat dose study with a 14-day recovery period. Healthy beagles (16 males and 16 females) were randomized into four treatment groups and treated with either medium chain triglyceride oil as the control or one of the following: broad spectrum cannabidiol, broad spectrum cannabidiol with cannabigerol, or broad spectrum cannabidiol with cannabidiolic acid at 5 mg total cannabinoids/kg body weight/day. Animals were observed daily with detailed clinical examinations conducted weekly. Animals were monitored for an additional 2 weeks after dosing. Body weights, food consumption and clinical pathology evaluations were included in the study. Cannabinoids were well tolerated when healthy male and female beagles were dosed for 90 consecutive days. Annual post-market surveillance data for hemp-derived supplement products sold for use in dogs from 2010 to 2023 (partial year) shows that the rate per 1 million administrations sold is 2.10 for adverse events and 0.01 for serious adverse events. Based on the results of this study, other published studies, and data from extensive post-market surveillance, hemp-derived cannabinoids are well tolerated in healthy dogs at a dose of 5 mg/kg body weight/day.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".