MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792562805 · doi:10.5455/ijlr.20170811080455

Association and Risk of Canine distemper with Respect to Age, Sex and Breed of Dogs Suffering from Demyelinating Neuropathies

2018· article· en· W2792562805 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sumit Mahajan, Sahadeb Dey, Akhilesh Kumar, Padma Nibash Panigrahi, Mahendran Karunanithy

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Livestock Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological diseases and metabolism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanine distemperBreedMedicineAssociation (psychology)VirologyBiologyPsychologyGeneticsVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A total of 3934 canine patients were screened clinically and dogs showing neurological signs were further examined for presence of Myelin basic protein and CD specific immunoglobulin (IgG and IgM) both in plasma and cerebrospinal fluid. The overall incidence of DMN in dogs was 3.53%, that of CD was 2.39% and DMN due to other causes was 1.14%. Age wise incidence of DMN was higher in age group >9 years (32.37%). Among the CD origin DMN cases incidence was higher in age group of 0-1 years (32.98%) and lowest in 1-3 years (9.57%). Sex wise incidence of CD was higher in male (53.33%) than female (46.67%). Further analysis of risk factor for CD in dog suffering from DMN and its association with age, sex and breed revealed that the dogs aged between 0 -1 years was 4.051, 1.384, 1.292 and 1.292 times more at risk when compared with dogs aged > 9 years (0.247), 3-6 years (0.723), 6-9 years (0.774) and 1-3 years (0.774) of age groups respectively. Breed wise Mongrel was 3.00, 2.250, 1.875, 1.263, 1.105 and 1.500 times higher at risk when compared with Dalmatian, Doberman, German shepherd, Labrador, Pomeranian and Spitz breed respectively. Dogs were 2.288 times more prone to CD than bitches.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Livestock ResearchSame topicNeurological diseases and metabolismFrench-language works237,207