Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Information about the clinical and clinicopathologic aspects of cerebrospinal nematodiasis (CN) in camelids is limited. HYPOTHESIS: Clinical and therapeutic variables will be identified as factors predictive of survival. ANIMALS: Client-owned camelids suspected of having CN admitted to Purdue University between 1995 and 2015. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed. A diagnosis of CN was based on cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) eosinophilic pleocytosis or postmortem findings. RESULTS: Eleven alpacas and 9 llamas met the inclusion criteria. Seventy-five percent of the camelids were male (27% castrated and 73% intact). Common clinical abnormalities included proprioceptive deficits (100% of animals), recumbency (55%), tachypnea (55%), and ataxia (40%). Among the 85% of treated animals, 100% received PO fenbendazole, and 88% received a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug. The survival rate to discharge was 45%. Plasma fibrinogen concentration, creatine kinase activity, and serum creatinine concentration were significantly higher in nonsurvivors. Blood eosinophil count, platelet count, and total CO2 were significantly lower in nonsurvivors. Factors associated with survival were species, sex, absence of treatment with corticosteroids, and clinical improvement. There was no association between recumbency at admission and survival. A plasma fibrinogen concentration above >266 mg/dL was an excellent diagnostic test to predict survival in the presence of neurological signs or CSF eosinophilia. CONCLUSIONS: Although prognosis for CN in camelids is guarded, presence of recumbency at admission is not predictive of nonsurvival. Male camelids and llamas appear more likely to die from CN. Corticosteroid treatment is contraindicated in animals diagnosed with CN.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".