Survey of ophthalmic abnormalities in the labradoodle in the UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One-hundred and seventy-five labradoodles underwent slit-lamp biomicroscopy and direct and indirect ophthalmoscopy between January 2008 and December 2009. These examinations were performed at shows by the first author. In addition, labradoodle eye certificates from the 2008 and 2009 British Veterinary Association/Kennel Club/International Sheep Dog Society (BVA/KC/ISDS) Eye Scheme were analysed (n=260). The results of the examinations were reviewed, and all ophthalmic abnormalities were recorded. The prevalence of any abnormality was compared with that reported by the Eye Scheme and the KC during 2009 for the labrador retriever, miniature, toy and standard poodles. Multifocal retinal dysplasia (MRD) was identified in 20 labradoodles (4.6 per cent), and cataracts were identified in 16 labradoodles (3.7 per cent). The prevalence of MRD in labradoodles was significantly greater than in labrador retrievers (P<0.0001). There was no difference in the prevalence of cataract between labradoodles and labrador retrievers (P=0.4866). The results of this study suggest that MRD is a relatively common finding in the labradoodle population in the UK. Given such an apparent high prevalence of MRD, routine screening for hereditary eye disease before breeding is advised for this increasingly popular new crossbreed.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".