MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114530497 · doi:10.5326/0410235

Outcomes of Dogs Presented for Cataract Evaluation: A Retrospective Study

2005· article· en· W2114530497 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elizabeth A. Adkins, Diane V. H. Hendrix

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Animal Hospital Association · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraocular Surgery and Lenses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePurebredBreedCataractsRetrospective cohort studyCataract surgeryOdds ratioOphthalmologyLabrador RetrieverSurgeryInternal medicineAnimal science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two hundred and forty-four dogs were evaluated for cataracts at the University of Tennessee from January 2001 to December 2002. Fifty-four canine breeds were affected. Odds ratios for cataracts were significantly higher for six purebred dogs (including the cocker spaniel, miniature schnauzer, toy poodle, Boston terrier, miniature poodle, and bichon frise) compared with mixed-breed dogs. One hundred fifty-nine dogs did not have cataract surgery. The most common reason for dogs not having surgery was retinal degeneration (n=66).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations49
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Animal Hospital AssociationSame topicIntraocular Surgery and LensesFrench-language works237,207