Radiographic abnormalities in cats with feline bronchial disease and intra- and interobserver variability in radiographic interpretation: 40 cases (1999–2006)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine prevalence of various radiographic signs in cats with feline bronchial disease (FBD) and evaluate intra- and interobserver variability in radiographic interpretation for examiners with variable degrees of experience in radiographic interpretation. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. ANIMALS: 40 cats with FBD and 40 control cats without thoracic disease. PROCEDURES: Radiographic abnormalities in cats with FBD were scored by consensus of 2 radiologists. Radiographs of control cats and cats with FBD were examined twice by 5 other individuals, and diagnostic accuracy and observer agreement were assessed. RESULTS: In cats with FBD, the most common radiographic signs were bronchial (n=37) and unstructured interstitial (30) lung patterns, lung hyperinflation (31) and hyperlucency (21), aerophagia (19), and lung soft tissue opacities (11). Ratios of lung inflation on ventrodorsal views were significantly higher in cats with FBD. For the 5 examiners, sensitivity ranged from 71% to 89% and specificity ranged from 43% to 74%. Intraobserver agreement was good (N=0.47 to 0.60), but the agreement between examiners was only poor to good (N=0.22 to 0.70). For most examiners, significant associations were found between examiner diagnosis (correct vs incorrect), level of examiner certainty, and bronchial pattern severity. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Findings suggested that several radiographic abnormalities can commonly be seen in cats with FBD but highlighted the limitations of thoracic radiography. Examiner diagnosis and level of confidence were significantly associated with severity of a bronchial pattern.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".