MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394789598 · doi:10.1111/jvim.17057

Comparative study of the bronchodilator efficacy and adverse effects of salbutamol and hyoscine butylbromide in horses with severe asthma

2024· article· en· W4394789598 on OpenAlexaff
Berta Mozo Vives, Sophie Mainguy‐Seers, Jean‐Pierre Lavoie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Internal Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPharmacological Effects and Assays
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCegep de Saint Hyacinthe
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSalbutamolBronchodilatorAsthmaBronchodilator AgentsAdverse effectAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Salbutamol and hyoscine butylbromide (HBB) are commonly used bronchodilators in horses with severe asthma (SA). OBJECTIVE: To compare the bronchodilation potency, duration, and adverse effects of salbutamol and HBB in SA. ANIMALS: Six horses in exacerbation of SA. METHODS: The effects of inhaled salbutamol (1000 μg) and HBB (150 mg, IV) were compared in a randomized, blinded, crossover experiment. Lung function, intestinal borborygmi and heart rate were assessed before and sequentially until 180 minutes after drug administration, and analyzed with 2-way repeated-measures ANOVA and Dunnett's multiple comparison tests. RESULTS: Both treatments caused a similar improvement in lung function. Pulmonary resistance and reactance returned to baseline values within 30 minutes after HBB administration, whereas salbutamol improved reactance until 180 minutes (mean improvement at 180 minutes of 0.040 Kpa/L/s, 95% CI = 0.004 to 0.076; P = .02 for salbutamol and of 0.009 Kpa/L/s, 95% CI = -0.028 to 0.045; P = .98 for HBB for the resistance at 3 Hz and of 0.040 Kpa/L/s, 95% CI = 0.007 to 0.074; P = .01 for salbutamol and of 0.009 Kpa/L/s, 95% CI = -0.024 to 0.042; P = .97 for HBB for the reactance at 7 Hz). From 5 to 30 minutes after HBB administration, the heart rate accelerated (mean increase of 3.3 beats per minute, 95% CI = -6.6 to 13.1; P = .92 for salbutamol, and of 13.0 beats per minute, 95% CI = 3.6 to 22.4; P = .002 for HBB at 30 minutes) and the gut sounds decreased (mean reduction of 1.3, 95% CI = -0.1 to 2.8; P = .09 for salbutamol and of 2.8 for the gastrointestinal auscultation score, 95% CI = 1.4 to 4.3; P < .0001 for HBB at 30 minutes). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Both drugs have a similar bronchodilator potency but with a longer duration for salbutamol. Gastrointestinal and cardiovascular effects were noted only with HBB, suggesting the preferential use of salbutamol to relieve bronchoconstriction in horses with asthma.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Internal MedicineSame topicPharmacological Effects and AssaysFrench-language works237,207