MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092330506 · doi:10.1136/vr.157.16.470

Specific causes of morbidity among Swedish horses insured for veterinary care between 1997 and 2000

2005· article· en· W2092330506 on OpenAlexaff
Johanna Penell, Agneta Egenvall, B. N. Bonnett, P. Olson, John Pringle

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary Record · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Equine Medical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLamenessMedicineBreedArthritisIncidence (geometry)Veterinary medicineJoint diseaseDiseaseFetlockPopulationPrevalencePediatricsSurgeryInternal medicineAnimal scienceBiologyEnvironmental healthPathologyOsteoarthritisAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The principal aim of this study was to analyse the incidence of disease due to general and more specific causes among over 100,000 horses covered by complete insurance for veterinary care by a Swedish insurance company during 1997 to 2000. The database was used to calculate the rate of cause-specific morbidity in horses of different ages, sexes and breed groups kept in different regions with different human population densities. The joints were the most commonly affected part of the body, followed by unspecified/whole body, the skin and the digestive system. The most common specific diagnosis was fetlock arthritis, followed by lameness of undefined origin, other locomotor problems, traumatic injuries to the skin, arthritis in several joints, and colic. Geldings had the highest rate of at least one disease event in the joints, unspecified/whole body, skeletal or respiratory system, whereas in the other four major systems the difference between the sexes was marginal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations82
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVeterinary RecordSame topicVeterinary Equine Medical ResearchFrench-language works237,207