Effect of castration on the urinary protein-to-creatinine ratio of male dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the urinary protein-to-creatinine ratio (UPCR) of healthy sexually intact male dogs and to compare the UPCR of these dogs before and after castration. ANIMALS: 19 client- or shelter-owned healthy adult sexually intact male dogs. PROCEDURES: Physical, hematologic, and biochemical examinations and urinalysis (including calculation of the UPCR) were performed on each dog. Dogs were then castrated, and physical examination and urinalysis (including calculation of the UPCR) were performed again at least 15 days after castration. RESULTS: A dipstick test yielded positive results for protein in the urine of 10 sexually intact male dogs, but the UPCR was < 0.5 for all sexually intact male dogs. Mean UPCR for sexually intact male dogs was 0.12 (range, 0.10 to 0.32). The UPCR was < 0.2 for all castrated dogs, except for 1. Mean UPCR for all castrated dogs was 0.08 (range, 0.05 to 0.69). There was a significant difference between mean UPCR before and after castration. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In this study, pathological proteinuria was not detected in sexually intact male dogs. Positive results for a urine dipstick test should be interpreted with caution in sexually intact male dogs and should be confirmed by assessment of the UPCR. An increased UPCR in sexually intact male dogs may be considered abnormal.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".