Vertebral scale system to measure heart size in thoracic radiographs of Indian Spitz, Labrador retriever and Mongrel dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To establish reference values of vertebral heart score (VHS) in Indian Spitz, Labrador retriever, and Mongrel dogs; to assess applicability of VHS in these three dog breeds; to determine if breed, recumbency side, gender, body weight, and thoracic depth (TD) to thoracic width (TW) ratio has an influence on the VHS measurement in these dog breeds. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 60, client owned, clinically healthy Indian Spitz (n=20, mean age = 4.25±2.15 years, body weight = 11.87±2.7 kg), Labrador retriever (n=20, mean age = 4.75±1.91 years, body weight = 27.31±5.43 kg), and Mongrel dogs (n=20, mean age = 4.25±1.52 years, body weight = 16.25±3.99 kg), having no radiological and clinical signs of cardiovascular or pulmonary disease were included in the study. All dogs were restrained manually and left lateral (LL) and right lateral (RL) radiographic views were obtained. The size of heart in lateral radiographs was calculated using VHS method. Besides, the TD, TW and TD: TW were calculated to determine the type of thoracic conformation in the dog breeds. In addition to this, the effect of breed, side of recumbency, gender, body weight, and TD to TW ratio on the calculation of VHS was determined. RESULTS: VHS was calculated in all the animals of the breeds. VHS in Spitz and Labrador retriever was significantly (p<0.0001, p<0.0001, respectively) >9.7±0.5 v. RL and LL VHS in Mongrel dog was significantly (p<0.037) >9.7±0.5 v. Significant (p<0.05) differences in the VHS were observed among Spitz, Labrador retriever and Mongrel dogs, being higher for Labrador retriever followed by Spitz and Mongrel dogs. VHS in RL recumbency was significantly (p<0.001) greater than VHS in LL recumbency in all three breeds. LL and RL VHS correlated significantly with each other in Spitz (r=0.58; p=0.02), Labrador retriever (r=0.87; p<0.0001), and Mongrel dogs (r=0.93; p<0.0001). Significant (p<0.05) differences in the TD and TW were observed among Spitz, Labrador retriever, and Mongrel dogs. Non-significant effect of gender, body weight, and TD to TW ratio on the VHS measurement was observed in each dog breed. CONCLUSION: Breed-specific VHS reference ranges should be used for the objective measurement of heart size in dogs. Furthermore, the radiographic view should also be taken into consideration to avoid any erroneous interpretation of cardiac enlargement in dogs.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".