Comparison of bacterial cultures of the larynx between dogs with laryngeal paralysis and normal dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To document the most common types of bacteria isolated from the canine larynx and to compare isolates, degree of growth and susceptibility patterns between dogs with laryngeal paralysis and dogs with normal laryngeal function. METHODS: Laryngeal swabs were collected from each patient and submitted for bacterial culture and susceptibility testing. Dogs with laryngeal paralysis (n=23) underwent a unilateral arytenoid lateralisation and control dogs (n=24) underwent an elective orthopaedic procedure. Results of the cultures were compared between groups. RESULTS: Bacterial organisms isolated from the larynx were similar to those normally found in the oropharynx, trachea and lungs. The most common bacteria isolated from the larynges of all dogs were Escherichia coli, Klebsiella species and Pasteurella species. Pure colonies were more commonly seen in dogs with laryngeal paralysis while mixed colonies were more commonly seen in control dogs. Antimicrobial resistance was similar between study and control dogs. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The laryngeal flora appears to contain bacteria that are commonly isolated from the oropharynx, trachea and lungs. Differences in antimicrobial susceptibility were not identified between study and control 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".