MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147396924

Canine and feline urolithiasis: examination of over 50 000 urolith submissions to the Canadian veterinary urolith centre from 1998 to 2008.

2009· article· en· W2147396924 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Doreen Μ. Houston, Andrew E. Moore

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Medicine and Surgery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStruviteCalcium oxalateVeterinary medicineMedicineCATSCalciumAnimal scienceInternal medicineBiologyPhosphateBiochemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study reports on trends in canine and feline urolithiasis in Canada during the past 10 years. Age, sex, breed of animals and mineral composition from 40 637 canine and 11 353 feline bladder uroliths submitted to the Canadian Veterinary Urolith Centre between 1998 and 2008 were recorded. Struvite and calcium oxalate uroliths comprised > 85% of all uroliths submitted. In dogs, the number of struvite submissions has declined and the number of calcium oxalate submissions has increased. Struvite uroliths were most common in female dogs and calcium oxalate uroliths in male dogs. The shih tzu, miniature schnauzer, bichon frisé, lhasa apso, and Yorkshire terrier were the breeds most commonly affected for both struvite and calcium oxalate uroliths. Urate uroliths were most common in male dalmatians. In cats, struvite submissions declined and calcium oxalate submissions remained constant. Struvite and calcium oxalate uroliths were common in domestic, Himalayan, Persian, and Siamese cats. Urate uroliths were over-represented in Egyptian maus.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations74
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicVeterinary Medicine and SurgeryFrench-language works237,207