MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133342037 · doi:10.1186/1751-0147-46-105

Mortality in over 350,000 Insured Swedish dogs from 1995–2000: I. Breed-, Gender-, Age- and Cause-specific Rates

2005· letter· en· W2133342037 on OpenAlexaff
B. N. Bonnett, Agneta Egenvall, Åke Hedhammar, P. Olson

Bibliographic record

VenueActa veterinaria Scandinavica · 2005
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersAgria Djurförsäkring
KeywordsBreedMedicineDemographyMortality rateCause of deathPediatricsBiologyDiseaseInternal medicineAnimal science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents data on over 350,000 insured Swedish dogs up to 10 years of age contributing to over one million dog-years at risk (DYAR) during 1995-2000. A total of 43,172 dogs died or were euthanised and of these 72% had a claim with a diagnosis for the cause of death. The overall total mortality was 393 deaths per 10,000 DYAR. Mortality rates are calculated for the 10 most common breeds, 10 breeds with high mortality and a group including all other breeds, crudely and for general causes of death. Proportional mortality is presented for several classifications. Five general causes accounted for 62% of the deaths with a diagnosis (i.e. tumour (18%), trauma (17%), locomotor (13%), heart (8%) and neurological (6%)). Mortality rates for the five most common diagnoses within the general causes of death are presented. These detailed statistics on mortality can be used in breed-specific strategies as well as for general health promotion programs. Further details on survival and relative risk by breed and age are presented in the companion paper (Egenvall et al. 2005).

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)0.002
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations182
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa veterinaria ScandinavicaSame topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207