MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ventricular Tachyarrhythmias in 106 Cats: Associated Structural Cardiac Disorders

2008· article· en· W2113344931 on OpenAlexaff
Étienne Côté, Ruy Gastaldoni Jaeger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Internal Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Conditions and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCATSInternal medicineCardiologyVentricular tachycardiaSignal-averaged electrocardiogramDilated cardiomyopathyCardiomyopathyHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Ventricular tachyarrhythmias occur in association with cardiac and extracardiac disorders in many species of animals, but information identifying concurrent disorders in cats with such arrhythmias is scarce. METHODS: We investigated coexisting diseases by retrospectively evaluating medical records of cats with ventricular tachyarrhythmias seen during a 51-month period at 1 institution. For comparative purposes, we evaluated records of dogs with similar arrhythmias during the same time period. All cats and dogs had premature ventricular complexes, accelerated idioventricular rhythm, ventricular tachycardia, or some combination of these arrhythmias, and all had undergone echocardiography during the same visit that led to the diagnosis of ventricular tachyarrhythmia. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Most (102/106; 96%) cats had at least 1 echocardiographically apparent abnormality concurrent with ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Ventricular tachyarrhythmias in cats were most commonly associated with myocardial disease (eg, left ventricular concentric hypertrophy [n = 66], restrictive or unclassified cardiomyopathy [n = 17], and dilated cardiomyopathy [n = 6]). When comparing dogs and cats that had ventricular tachyarrhythmias and were diagnosed on the same clinical service of the same institution, an echocardiographically apparent cardiac lesion was seen more often in cats (102/106, 96%) than in dogs (95/138, 69%) (P < .001).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 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

Citations31
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Internal MedicineSame topicCardiovascular Conditions and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207