Evaluation of athletic performance in horses with jugular vein thrombophlebitis: 91 cases (1988–2005)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate effects of thrombophlebitis of 1 or both jugular veins on athletic performance of horses. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. ANIMALS: 91 horses with jugular vein thrombophlebitis. PROCEDURES: Medical records of horses with jugular vein thrombophlebitis examined between 1988 and 2005 were reviewed for signalment, history, clinical signs, diagnosis, and treatment. Performance was evaluated in 2 ways. A questionnaire was used to obtain a subjective assessment from the owner or trainer of the horse's performance after thrombophlebitis, compared with the performance before thrombophlebitis. Racing records from before and after thrombophlebitis were also evaluated. RESULTS: Thrombophlebitis was diagnosed in 37 horses at the time of admission (group 1), and 54 horses developed thrombophlebitis during hospitalization for an unrelated medical condition (group 2). Twenty-seven of 81 (33%) owners answered the questionnaire, and racing records were available for 31 horses. Performance data were available for 48 horses. Owners reported that all nonracing horses, except 1, had equivalent or better performances after discharge. Twenty-six of 31 (84%) Standardbreds resumed racing; in these horses, there was no significant difference between racing times before and after thrombophlebitis. No significant difference in performance was detected regardless of the primary disease, whether a horse had unilateral or bilateral thrombophlebitis, or the treatment administered. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggested that the athletic performance of horses used for nonracing events was not affected by thrombophlebitis. Thrombophlebitis in racing Standardbreds was associated with a decreased chance of return to racing; however, performance was not impaired in those that resumed racing.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".