Clinical and pathologic findings in donkeys with hypothermia: 10 cases (1988–1998)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe clinical signs and clinicopathologic findings in donkeys with hypothermia. DESIGN: Retrospective study. ANIMALS: 10 hypothermic donkeys. PROCEDURE: Information on signalment, history, physical examination findings, results of diagnostic tests, treatments, and necropsy findings was extracted from medical records of all donkeys with hypothermia between 1988 and 1998 and compared with information from medical records of all normothermic donkeys and hypothermic horses admitted to the hospital during the same period. RESULTS: Donkeys were more likely to be hypothermic than horses. The mean age of hypothermic donkeys was 6 years (range, 7 months to 11 years), compared with 4.2 years (range, < 1 month to 15 years) for normothermic donkeys; this difference was not significant. Ten of 12 horses with hypothermia were neonates; there were no hypothermic neonatal donkeys. At admission, 7 of 8 hypothermic donkeys were in good body condition and all hypothermic donkeys were weak. Six hypothermic donkeys were able to maintain sternal recumbency, 1 remained in lateral recumbency, and 3 were able to stand. Of the 10 hypothermic donkeys, 2 survived, 1 died, and 7 were euthanatized. Histologically, the thyroid glands from 4 of 5 hypothermic donkeys appeared abnormal and were similar to those of foals with hypothyroidism. During the months that hypothermic donkeys were admitted, there was not a significant difference in environmental temperatures on days of admission between hypothermic and normothermic donkeys. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Hypothermia is a problem in donkeys during cold winter months, and may not be secondary to other disease or related to diet or management.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".