Reference values of M-mode echocardiographic parameters and indices in conscious Labrador Retriever dogs.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breed-wise standard echocardiographic values in dogs have been reported as there is variation in body and chest conformation which limits the application of data of one breed for other breed. Labrador Retrievers being originated from hunting dogs, might have different echocardiographic values from standard normal range of other dog breeds. So, the present study was aimed to determine the M-mode echocardiographic reference ranges in Labrador Retriever dogs and to evaluate the effect of body weight and gender on these parameters. The data obtained were also compared with that of the other dog breeds. Conscious clinically healthy Labrador Retriever dogs (n=24) of both sexes were made the subject of the study. All the measurements were made from a right parasternal long axis left ventricular outflow tract view and the parameters measured were: left ventricular dimensions, left ventricular function, left ventricular volumes, left atrial and aortic root diameter and mitral valve parameters. Data obtained were also compared with that available for other dog breeds. Significant correlation (P<0.05) with body weight was obtained for some of the left ventricular, atrial and mitral valve parameters, being strong for LAD, AOD, LVIDd, LVIDs, IVSd and IVSs (r>0.5); moderate for LVPWd, LVPWs, EPSS, EF Slope and SV (r=0.3 to 0.5); weak for EDV and ESV (r<0.3). Non-significant effect of gender was seen on all the echocardiographic parameters. However, some of the parameters had a significant breed effect. It is expected that the obtained data will be valuable for the progress of studies on small animal cardiology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".