Clinical outcome after diagnosis of hemophilia A in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical course of dogs with hemophilia A (factor VIII deficiency) and to determine whether factor VIII coagulant activity (FVIII:C) was associated with severity of clinical signs and outcome. DESIGN: Survey study. SAMPLE: Respondent information for 39 client-owned dogs with FVIII deficiency. PROCEDURES: Information was obtained via a survey distributed to the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine and American College of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care email list serves and to the Veterinary Information Network community to identify dogs with hemophilia A (FVIII:C ≤ 20%). Severity of FVIII deficiency was classified as mild (FVIII:C, 6% to 20%), moderate (FVIII:C, 2% to 5%), or severe (FVIII:C, < 2%). RESULTS: Data for 39 dogs (38 males and 1 female) were compiled. Mixed-breed dogs, German Shepherd Dogs, and Labrador Retrievers were most commonly affected. In most (34/39) dogs, disease was diagnosed at < 1 year of age. Bleeding associated with teething, minor trauma, vaccination, and elective surgical procedures most commonly prompted FVIII:C testing. Affected dogs had similar signs of spontaneous hemorrhage regardless of the magnitude of FVIII deficiency. Four dogs were euthanized without treatment at the time of diagnosis. Thirty dogs received ≥ 1 blood transfusion; FVIII:C did not appear to influence transfusion requirements. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results indicated that dogs with hemophilia A have variations in clinical course of the disease and may have a good long-term prognosis. Residual FVIII:C may not be useful for predicting severity of clinical signs, transfusion needs, or long-term prognosis.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".