MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978045624 · doi:10.2460/javma.228.1.86

Evaluation of lung lobe torsion in Pugs: 7 cases (1991–2004)

2006· article· en· W1978045624 on OpenAlexaff
Kimberly Murphy, Brigitte A. Brisson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Veterinary Medical Association · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreedMedicineLungSurgeryInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is a predis-position for lung lobe torsion (LLT) in Pugs and describe clinical findings associated with LLT in that breed, compared with findings in other breeds. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. ANIMALS: 7 Pugs and 16 dogs of other breeds. PROCEDURE: Information collected from records included signalment, history, lung lobe affected, results of clinicopathologic testing, histologic findings, diagnostic imaging results, surgical treatment, and outcome. RESULTS: 23 dogs were diagnosed with LLT, 10 of which were large-breed dogs and 13 of which were small-breed dogs. Seven of the small-breed dogs were Pugs. Pugs with LLT were significantly overrepresented, compared with the general hospital population. Affected Pugs ranged in age from 4.5 months to 4 years (median, 1.5 years). Six of the 7 Pugs had no predisposing conditions, and 6 were male. Six Pugs survived to discharge. Of the other small- and large-breed dogs, 3 of 6 and 5 of 10 survived to discharge, respectively. None of the Pugs were readmitted for complications or recurrence. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results indicated that young male Pugs may be predisposed to developing spontaneous LLT. The prognosis for survival and resolution of clinical signs in Pugs with LLT appeared to be excellent. Factors contributing to the development of LLT in Pugs are not known.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.839

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations52
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Veterinary Medical AssociationSame topicCongenital Diaphragmatic Hernia StudiesFrench-language works237,207