MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810072481 · doi:10.1556/004.2018.019

Electroretinographic findings in day-blind dogs

2018· article· en· W2810072481 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Magdalena Drążek-Kubiak, Marcin Lew, Sylwia Lew

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Veterinaria Hungarica · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotopic visionScotopic visionErgElectroretinographyOphthalmologyMedicineRetinal degenerationBlindnessOptometryAudiologyRetinal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cone degeneration (cd; day blindness) is one of the inherited retinal diseases of dogs. Its diagnosis is based on vision testing, fundoscopy, electroretinography (ERG) and, for some breeds, on genetic tests. Typical signs of the disease are day blindness and cone dysfunction during ERG while fundoscopy does not show any abnormalities. The aim of this study was to compare behavioural findings, fundoscopic lesions and electroretinographic alterations in 12 cd-affected dogs (Alaskan Malamute, Labrador Retriever, German Shepherd, Dachshund, Yorkshire Terrier, Shih Tzu, Siberian Husky and crossbreeds) examined at our clinic. None of the examined dogs had any fundoscopic lesions, and all of them had normal scotopic vision with strongly impaired or absent photopic vision. Light-adapted transient, cone-mediated and steady-state, 31-Hz cone flicker ERGs were much below the 5th percentile limits of normality or even unrecordable, while the rod-driven ERGs were within normal values. Vision test and ERG results corresponded to each other and, combined with the results of fundoscopy, were typical of cd. To date, our research is one of the few studies in the world presenting ERG alterations compared with vision test findings and fundoscopic results in the course of cd.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Veterinaria HungaricaSame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207