MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790393405 · doi:10.12681/jhvms.15867

Reproductive emergencies in the bitch: a retrospective study

2018· article· en· W2790393405 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ana Martins‐Bessa, Luı́s Cardoso, Thais Lazarino Maciel da Costa, Rafael Souza Mota, A. Rocha, Luz Marita Monteza Montenegro

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Hellenic Veterinary Medical Society · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Medicine and Surgery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPyometraMedicineMalteseGynecologyEpidemiologyObstetricsRetrospective cohort studyGeneral surgerySurgeryUterusInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed at analyzing reproductive emergencies (RE) in bitches brought in to a general veterinary hospital during a 24 month-period; evaluating their clinical-epidemiological features; and assessing the results of applied therapy. RE accounted for 11.8% of all female dog emergency clinical cases. Pyometra and dystocia accounted for 56.0% and 32% of the RE, with three (Newfoundland, Siberian Husky, Chow-Chow) and nine breeds (Boston Terrier, French Bulldog, Bernese Mountain Dog, Yorkshire Terrier, St. Bernard, Maltese, Chihuahua, Doberman and Boxer) found at higher risk of pyometra and dystocia, respectively. Fifty-four (96.4%) cases of pyometra were surgically managed, with a mortality of 13.0%. Primary uterine inertia (19 cases) was the main cause (59.4%) of dystocia. Medical treatment was attempted in 23 cases of dystocia (71.9%) but found to be effective in only two of them, leading to a high percentage of caesarian sections (30/32 cases, 93.8%). Both pyometra and dystocia had a high percentage of success following surgery. The use of standardized diagnostic and treatment protocols for the approach of RE allowed favorable outcomes.

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 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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Hellenic Veterinary Medical SocietySame topicVeterinary Medicine and SurgeryFrench-language works237,207