Evaluation of results for Schirmer tear tests conducted with and without application of a topical anesthetic in clinically normal dogs of 5 breeds
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, for clinically normal dogs, results of Schirmer tear tests in eyes without topical anesthetic (STT) and to detect differences associated with breed, sex, age, day, and time of day in eyes in which STT was performed after use of topical anesthetic (STTa). ANIMALS: 41 Beagles, 43 Labrador Retrievers, 25 Golden Retrievers, 26 English Springer Spaniels, and 22 Shetland Sheepdogs. PROCEDURE: Beagles had STT and STTa values measured twice daily for 5 days. Client-owned dogs of 4 other breeds had STT and STTa values measured once. RESULTS: Mean +/- SD values of Beagles for STT and STTa were 20.2 +/- 2.5 and 3.8 +/- 2.7 mm/min. Mean values for STT and STTa were as follows: Labrador Retriever, 22.9 +/- 4.1 and 9.6 +/- 3.8 mm/min; English Springer Spaniel; 20.7 +/- 3.2 and 5.4 +/- 3.4 mm/min; Golden Retriever, 21.8 + 3.7 and 8.8 +/- 3.1 mm/min; and Shetland Sheepdog, 15.8 +/- 1.8 and 3.6 +/- 2.8 mm/min. Overall mean values for STT and STTa were 20.2 +/- 3.0 and 6.2 +/- 3.1 mm/min. Differences for STT and STTa were detected among breeds, but significant differences were not associated with sex or age within each breed or in overall values for all dogs. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results for the STT reported here compare favorably with reported values, except for results of Shetland Sheepdogs; however, results for the STTa differ dramatically from reported values. Clinicians should consider effects attributable to breed when evaluating results of STT and STTa in dogs.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it