Respective associations between ureteral obstruction and renomegaly, urine specific gravity, and serum creatinine concentration in cats: 29 cases (2006–2013)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the respective associations between ureteral obstruction and renomegaly, urine specific gravity (USG), and serum creatinine concentration and to assess the reliability of abdominal palpation for detection of renomegaly in cats. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. ANIMALS: 89 client-owned cats with (n = 29) or without ureteral obstruction and with (30) or without (30) kidney disease. PROCEDURES: Medical records of cats that underwent abdominal ultrasonography at a veterinary teaching hospital from January 2006 through April 2013 were reviewed. Cats were categorized as having ureteral obstruction (obstructed group) or no ureteral obstruction with (KD group) or without kidney disease (NKD group). Renomegaly and renal asymmetry were defined on the basis of mean renal length for NKD cats. Prevalence of renomegaly and renal asymmetry, mean USG and serum creatinine concentration, and abdominal palpation and ultrasonographic findings were compared among the groups. RESULTS: Renomegaly was identified in 2 obstructed cats and 1 KD cat and was not associated with ureteral obstruction. Renal asymmetry was detected in 18 obstructed cats and 11 KD cats. For obstructed and KD cats, the mean USG was significantly lower and the mean serum creatinine concentration was significantly greater than those for NKD cats. Twenty-eight of 29 cats with ureteral obstruction had hypercreatininemia. Abdominal palpation was not a reliable method for detection of renomegaly. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results indicated renomegaly was not associated with ureteral obstruction in cats, and abdominal palpation was an unreliable method for detection of renomegaly. The most consistent abnormal finding for cats with ureteral obstruction was hypercreatininemia.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".