C-Reactive Protein as a Prognostic Indicator in Dogs with Acute Abdomen Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the present study was to measure serum C-reactive protein (CRP) concentrations in 32 dogs with acute abdomen syndrome at presentation and after 48-72 hr. Data were evaluated to determine if there was an association between CRP concentration and outcome, and if CRP concentration correlated with the white blood cell (WBC) count at both time points. An immunoturbidimetric assay for human CRP, previously validated for use in dogs, was used for serum CRP analysis. Increased serum CRP concentrations were found in 21 dogs at presentation. Fifteen of these dogs had declining serum CRP concentrations by 48-72 hr, but 3 of the 15 dogs were later euthanized. Serum CRP concentrations increased by 48-72 hr in 4 dogs. Of the 32 dogs, 4 were dead or were euthanized prior to the 48-72 hr time point. No significant difference between initial CRP concentration and outcome was found (P = 0.054). Initial and 48-72 hr CRP values taken together were significantly different between outcome groups (P < 0.001). Serum CRP concentrations that were elevated at both time points were associated with a poor prognosis. No correlation was found between CRP concentrations and WBC counts at presentation (P = 0.83); however, a significant correlation was noted at 48-72 hr (P = 0.03). Evaluation of sequential CRP concentrations in dogs with acute abdomen syndrome may be helpful in assessing clinical response to treatment and predicting outcome. Also, serum CRP may be better in detecting tissue injury and/or inflammation at presentation than WBC counts in select cases.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".