Clinical findings associated with prairie rattlesnake bites in dogs: 100 cases (1989–1998)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify clinically relevant variables and treatments for dogs bitten by prairie rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis viridis). DESIGN: Retrospective study. ANIMALS: 100 client-owned dogs. PROCEDURE: Records of dogs evaluated for rattlesnake envenomation from 1989 to 1998 were reviewed. Analysis was performed to test for significant associations among clinical variables or treatments and cell counts, costs, and duration of hospitalization. RESULTS: Most prairie rattlesnake bites occurred between May and September. Dogs were 3 months to 12 years old (median, 3.7 years); most were bitten on the head in the late afternoon. There was no sex predilection. Median time to evaluation was 1 hour (range, 15 minutes to 13 hours). Swelling in the area of the bite was the primary physical abnormality. Principal initial laboratory findings were echinocytosis, thrombocytopenia, leukocytosis, and prolonged activated clotting time. Ninety-four dogs were hospitalized; 48 were discharged the following day. Antimicrobials and crystalloid fluids, glucocorticoids, antihistamines, and antivenin administered i.v. were the most commonly used treatments. One dog died, and small dogs were hospitalized longer than large dogs. Antivenin administration was not significantly associated with duration of hospitalization but was associated with higher platelet counts after treatment and higher total hospital costs. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Prairie rattlesnake envenomation in dogs is associated with high morbidity rate but low mortality rate. The efficacy of administration of antivenin for dogs with bites from this snake species is questionable.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".