P‐56 Evaluation of the association between <i>Giardia</i> infection and pruritic skin disease in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intestinal parasites have been anecdotally associated with pruritus in dogs. A relationship was proposed when the elimination of a specific parasite resolved the pruritus, and re‐infection with a parasite caused the pruritus to recur. Ascarids, coccidia, hookworms, tapeworms and whipworms have all been incriminated. Recent reports in the human and veterinary literature have suggested that there may be a relationship between Giardia infection and the development of pruritus and other allergic signs. In order to determine if there is an association between infection with Giardia and pruritus in dogs, faecal samples were collected from 71 pruritic dogs and 101 clinically normal dogs. Three faecal samples from each animal were analysed using a zinc‐sulphate concentration technique for the presence of Giardia cysts, and one randomly selected faecal sample from each dog was analysed with an ELISA for Giardia ‐specific antigen. Ten of 101 dogs (9.9%) in the clinically normal group tested positive with the ELISA, and Giardia cysts were detected in the faeces of seven of these antigen‐positive dogs. No Giardia cysts were found in the dogs that tested negative with the ELISA. None of the dogs in the pruritic group tested positive for Giardia by either method. The results indicated a negative association between Giardia infection and pruritic skin disease ( P = 0.006). Cephalexin was commonly used in the pruritic group, but not in the control group, and may therefore be an explanatory variable. Funding: Ontario Veterinary College Pet Trust.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".