Ruptura do ligamento cruzado cranial de cães atendidos no Hovet da Universidade Anhembi Morumbi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is identify risk factors such as race, age, sex, body weight and spaying/ neutering in dogs that suffered rupture of the cranial cruciate ligament (RCCL), treated at Hovet Universidade Anhembi Morumbi. Records of cases of dogs treated with RCCL were surveyed in the 2009 – 2015 period. In the period studied, 382 animals were treated with RCCL, of which 189 were females and 193 males. There is no statistically significant difference between males and females at the age of neutering, age at rupture and in the interval between neutering and RLCCr. But there was a statistically significant difference in the average age at RCCL of animals over 20 kg compared to the others.It was concluded that there is influence of the animal weight in the occurrence of RLCCr, since animals with more than 20 kg presented the RLCCr with a lower age than the smaller animals. The races most affected by RLCCr were Pitbull, Poodle, Fila Brasileiro, Yorkshire, Rotweiler, Labrador and Lhasa Apso. As in this study there was no treatment of spaying/ neutering animals before puberty that presented RLCCr, it is necessary to investigate the influence of spaying/ neutering in prepubertal animals in the occurrence of RLCCr.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".