Presumed secondary immune‐mediated haemolytic anaemia following elapid snake envenomation and its treatment in four dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CASE SERIES: This case series describes secondary immune-mediated haemolytic anaemia (IMHA) in four dogs following elapid snake envenomation and its treatment. All the dogs initially presented with clinical signs commensurate with mainland tiger snake (Notechis scutatus) envenomation. None of the dogs was anaemic at the time of presentation. IMHA was diagnosed 3-9 days following snake envenomation. The trigger for IMHA was unclear in each case and may have been a component of the snake venom, antivenom, fresh frozen plasma, concurrent morbidity, administered drugs or a combination thereof. Three of the four dogs received immunosuppressive therapy comprising corticosteroids with or without azathioprine. Resolution of the IMHA was documented 6 weeks after diagnosis for one dog and 9 months after diagnosis for two dogs, with one dog lost to follow-up. CONCLUSION: IMHA is a potential complicating factor of elapid snake envenomation and its treatment in dogs, and should be considered as a differential diagnosis for a persistent or worsening anaemia. Both the incidence and aetiopathogenesis of IMHA in the context of elapid snake envenomation and its treatment in dogs are unknown and require further examination.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".