MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023081376 · doi:10.1111/jsap.12106

Urine concentrations of xanthine, hypoxanthine and uric acid in<scp>UK</scp>Cavalier King Charles spaniels

2013· article· en· W2023081376 on OpenAlexaff
A. M. L. Jacinto, Richard J. Mellanby, Marjorie L. Chandler, Nicholas X Bommer, Harvey Carruthers, Lynette D. Fairbanks, Adam G. Gow

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Small Animal Practice · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Medicine and Surgery
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsymptomaticXanthineMedicineHypoxanthineUrineUric acidCreatinineAllopurinolPopulationPurineInternal medicineBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Xanthine urolithiasis and asymptomatic xanthinuria have been diagnosed in Cavalier King Charles spaniel dogs suggesting that primary xanthinuria may be a breed-related disorder, although its prevalence remains unclear. The hypothesis of this study was that asymptomatic xanthinuria is common in Cavalier King Charles spaniel dogs. METHODS: Free catch urine samples were collected from 35 client-owned Cavalier King Charles spaniel dogs and from 24 dogs of other breeds. The purine metabolites were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography. The urine ratios of xanthine/creatinine and hypoxanthine/creatinine were calculated and compared between the two groups of dogs. RESULTS: The urine concentrations of purine metabolites were not significantly different between the two groups and were very low in both. The urine concentrations of xanthine in all 35 Cavalier King Charles spaniel were markedly lower than in the previously reported case of xanthine urolithiasis in a UK Cavalier King Charles spaniel dog. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Asymptomatic xanthinuria was not detected in this UK Cavalier King Charles spaniel population. This data may be used as a reference for urinary purine metabolite concentrations in the dog.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.773

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Small Animal PracticeSame topicVeterinary Medicine and SurgeryFrench-language works237,207