MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1568630626

Clinico-epidemiology, etio-diagnosis and treatment aspects of diarrhoea syndrome in dogs.

2008· article· en· W1568630626 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
V. V. Deshmukh, J. P. Varshney, Priyanka Chaudhary, Saleem Desai

Bibliographic record

VenueIntas Polivet · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVeterinary Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEtiologyVomitingBreedEpidemiologyFecesAbdominal ultrasonographyInternal medicinePediatricsVeterinary medicineSurgeryUltrasonographyAnimal scienceBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eight hundred twenty three cases of diarrhoea syndrome in dogs, observed during a period of 2 years (July, 2006 to June, 2008), were investigated using diagnostic tools such as patient data, clinical symptoms, faecal floatation test, faecal cytology, haemogram, abdominal radiography, abdominal survey ultrasonography, and serum biochemistry as per clinical suspicion in these cases. Prevalence of diarrhoea syndrome was found as 8.23 per 100 canine patients. Eight hundred twenty three diarrhoeic cases were observed in both sexes (males 72.05 %, female 27.67 %), of 19 breed (Pomeranian 31.95 %, German shepherd 15.67 %, Non-descript 12.15 %, Labrador 12.02 %, Great Dane 5.95 %, Doberman 5.1 %, Rottwieller 3.52 %, Lhasa apso 2.91 %, Boxer 2.55 %, Pug 1.45 %, Cocker spaniel 1.21 %, Mastiff 1.21 %, Golden retriever 0.97 %, St. Bernard 0.97 %, Dachshund 0.72 %, Dalmatian 0.72 %, Irish setter 0.12 %, Chowchow 0.12 % and Spitz 0.12 %) and of different age groups (New born to one month 8.26 %; > 1 month to 4 month 26.12 %; > 4 months to 1 years 23.20 %; > 1 years to 6 years 28.18 % and > 6 years 14.21 %) round the year with more prevalence in May (17.25 %), January (14.94) and July (12.90 %). Of 823 diarrhoeic cases, 299 (36.33 %) were with vomiting and 109 (13.24 %) were with frank blood in faeces. Etiological investigations revealed that 38.15, 4.73, 8.26, 0.60, 0.85, 0.60, 0.36, 0.97, 1.12 and 44.22 percent cases were of parasitic, enteric protozoan, haemorrhagic gastroenteritis, dietary, garbage intoxication, chronic colitis, hepatobilliary, blood protozoan/rickettsial, drug induced or unidentified etiology respectively. Ancylostomes sp., Dipylidium sp., Toxocara sp., mixed infections (Toxocara and Ancylostoma; Ancylostoma and Dipylidium), flukes, Trichuris and Strongyles contributed to 55.77, 22.9, 14.3, 4.4, 1.9, 0.95 and 0.63 % cases of parasitic etiology. Amongst diarrhoea of protozoan etiology Coccidia sp. (66.6 %) and Giardia duodenalis (33.33 %) were detected.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntas PolivetSame topicVeterinary Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207