MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753247167 · doi:10.5455/ijlr.20170615052321

Prevalence of Malassezia Pachydermatis in Dogs

2017· article· en· W2753247167 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rasamalla Suresh, Karlapudi Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Livestock Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNail Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalasseziaBiologyMicrobiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present study the prevalence of Malassezia pachydermatis among the clinical cases of dogs was 28%. However, Malassezia sps was also associated in dogs with demodicosis (6.6%), pyoderma (4.4%) and dermatophytosis (2.2%). The breed wise prevalence of canine malasseziosis was highest in Labrador retriever (32 %) and least in Great dane, Dachshund and Pug (2 %). Similarly, a prevalence rate of 42% was recorded in dogs which were above 8 yrs and a least prevalence of 24% among the dogs aged between 1-4 yrs and whereas, the infection was more prevalent in males (58 %) when compared to females (42 %). Further, the seasonal prevalence was recorded to be highest in summer (52 %) and minimum in monsoon (20 %).

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.378 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Livestock ResearchSame topicNail Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207