MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325406642 · doi:10.2743/jve.16.35

A research on Foreign Body Ingestion in Dogs

2011· article· en· W2325406642 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Asako Shimamura, Mai Inoue, T Arai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Epidemiology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicRabies epidemiology and control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineForeign bodyIngestionVeterinary medicineAnimal healthLivestockEpidemiologyDemographyEnvironmental healthSurgeryGeographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Veterinary clinicians often encounter with foreign body ingestion in domestic dogs. Accumulation of treatment information and epidemiological data about these cases could lead development of methods for prevention and enlightenment for dog owners. So far, these incidents are regarded as carelessness by dog owners, and veterinary clinicians did not show concrete directions for prevention of these incidents for owners. In this study, we analyzed animal health insurance claims data of these incidents in dogs and collected preventive findings about the cases from clinicians and owners using the internet research.Insurance claims data were used for analysis of the prevalence of these incidents in dogs. Total of 252,414 dogs which contracted Anicom animal health insurance from April 1 2009 to March 31 2010 were used as source data for analysis. 5,708 dogs cases were claimed as incidents caused by foreign body ingestion (total claims were 8,296 cases). Difference of prevalence of these incidents between ages is significant. 4.4% (2,728 dogs/61,448 dogs) for puppies under one year of age, 2.5% (736/29,215) for 1 year old, 1.8% (620/34,616) and under 1.5% for 3-10 years old. The average of prevalence for total dogs was 1.7%. Especially in puppies under one year of age, among top 17 breeds of insured dog, the prevalence of foreign body ingestion was 7.1% for French Bulldogs, 6.8% for Golden Retrievers, 6.0% for Cavalier King Charles Spaniels, 5.5% for Papillons, Labrador Retrievers, and 4.5% Toy Poodle. These breeds showed higher prevalence than the average (4.4%) for all breeds. For these breeds with higher prevalence materials/objects (substances) causing these incidents should be removed. The internet research with clinician prevailed that possible substances causing incidents (plural answer available) were some kinds of strings, seeds of fruit and plum pickles, medical supplies, pebble, grains of sand, some kinds of cloth like socks, towel and dust-cloth. Over 84% (145/172) clinicians reported that they encountered these incidents caused by above mentioned objects. Even 27 death cases were reported by strings, 16 cases by medical supplies and 13 cases by kinds of cloth. These objects/materials should be removed from dogs particularly. Death cases by accidental ingestions were also reported in dogs by poisoning of ornamental lily (12 cases), chocolate (9 cases) and onion (4 cases). The internet reserch for pet owners showed that over 90% of owners knew toxicity with chocolate and onion but only 29% of owners knew risk of poisoning with lily.Incidents caused by foreign body ingestion is very dangerous behavior inducing death in dogs, and careful monitoring of these incidents should be carried on with all concerned veterinary medicine.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score0.884

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.291
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.132 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary EpidemiologySame topicRabies epidemiology and controlFrench-language works237,207