Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the survival and prognostic indicators (i.e. breed predilection, season, blood transfusion, and the prevalence of autoagglutination) of dogs with immune-mediated haemolytic anaemia (IMHA) in Victoria, Australia. DESIGN: Retrospective study of 110 diagnosed with primary IMHA at the University of Melbourne Veterinary Clinic and Hospital. RESULTS: In total, 80 of the dogs (72.7%) were discharged from hospital and 48 of 65 (73.8%) dogs available for follow-up were known to be alive at 1 year, giving an overall 1-year survival of 48 (50.5%) of 95 dogs for which survival data were available. Regarding breed, 80 (18.2%) of the 110 dogs were Maltese-breed dogs compared with 81 (7.4%) of 1100 control dogs (P < 0.001). Springer Spaniels (P = 0.02), Hungarian Vizslas (P = 0.02) and Airedale Terriers (P < 0.001) were also over-represented compared with the control sample. There was no evidence of an association between the occurrence of IMHA in dogs and season in this study. Receiving one or more blood transfusions did not affect survival to the time of discharge from hospital. On initial blood smear examination, 57 (51.8%) of the 110 dogs had spontaneous autoagglutination and its presence was associated with decreased survival to discharge from hospital (P = 0.03). Packed cell volume, white cell count, platelet count and serum total bilirubin on admission had no effect on survival to the time of discharge from hospital or 1 year later. CONCLUSION: Dogs with IMHA have a guarded prognosis as only half are still alive 1 year after the acute event.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".