Vestibular, Vaginal, and Urethral Relations in Spayed Dogs With and Without Lower Urinary Tract Signs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the urogenital anatomy in female spayed dogs with and without signs of lower urinary tract disease by using conventional vaginourethrography, computed tomography (CT) vaginourethrography, and uroendoscopy. Nineteen dogs with lower urinary tract disease and 12 normal dogs were evaluated prospectively. Measurements made included vaginal length, vaginal height, vaginal width, vestibule length, vestibule height, vestibule width, vestibulovaginal ratios, cingulum height, cingulum width, cingulum area, urethral length, urethral height, urethral width, angle of urethra to vestibule, and angle of vaginal to vestibule. Group comparisons were made between dogs with and without lower urinary tract disease. Comparisons between conventional vaginourethrography and CT vaginourethrography were made when the same anatomical measurement was made by the 2 imaging modalities. There was no significant difference in all of the measurements (P > .01), including vestibulovaginal ratios and cingulum areas, between dogs with and without lower urinary tract disease. There was a larger proportion of dogs with a vestibulovaginal ratio <0.33 in normal dogs (8 of 12) compared with the clinical dogs (8 of 16). A significant difference between vestibulovaginal ratios or cingulum areas between dogs with and without lower urinary tract disease could not be identified. This suggests that a vestibulovaginal ratio of <0.33 may only be an incidental finding and the term "vestibulovaginal stenosis" may need to be redefined.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".