Perceptions and priorities of owners of dogs with heart disease regarding quality versus quantity of life for their pets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the relative importance of pets' quality versus quantity of life among owners of dogs with heart disease. DESIGN: Prospective questionnaire-based clinical study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Owners of 201 dogs with heart disease. PROCEDURES: Owners each completed a questionnaire that was designed to ascertain the relative importance of quality versus quantity of life for their pet and to assess the owners' willingness to trade survival time for quality of life, if that were possible. Analyses were performed to evaluate factors associated with owner willingness to trade time for quality of life. RESULTS: Most owners (170/197 [86%]) were willing to trade survival time for quality of life for their heart disease-affected dogs; of those owners, 88 (52%) were willing to trade 6 months. Owners were highly concerned with detection of perceived pet suffering and their pet's ability to interact with them. Owners whose pets had respiratory difficulty or fainting episodes and were treated on an outpatient basis had a greater willingness to trade survival time than owners of dogs that were treated on an emergency basis. Among owners willing to trade time for quality of life, younger owners and those whose pets had fainting episodes were willing to trade the most amount of time. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results indicated that quality of life is highly important to owners of dogs with heart disease. Owners' priorities partly depend on owner age and the pet's clinical circumstances; ongoing client-veterinarian communication is important to optimize treatment success as perceived by owners.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".