Survival associated with cerebrospinal fluid analysis in downer adult dairy cows: A retrospective study (2006-2014)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Threshold values for total nucleated cell count (TNCC) and protein concentration in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of downer dairy cows suggestive of a spinal cord lesion were recently published. OBJECTIVES: Determine short- and long-term survival of downer cows that underwent CSF analysis using the reported threshold values. Evaluate the prognostic value of these threshold values to predict short- and long-term survival. ANIMALS: Two hundred and fourteen downer adult dairy cows that underwent CSF analysis during hospitalization at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vétérinaire (CHUV) of the Université de Montréal. METHODS: Retrospective study. Medical records of downer adult dairy cows presented to the hospital between January 2006 and October 2014 for which CSF analysis results were available were studied. Short-term (discharge from hospital) and long-term (completion of lactation) survival were determined and compared in accordance with CSF TNCC and protein concentration, using a Chi-square test. RESULTS: Cows with CSF TNCC and/or protein concentration above the threshold values had a significantly lower short-term survival rate (P = .02). The odds of nonsurvival of cows with one or both CSF values above the threshold values was 2.16 times higher than the odds for cows with values under the threshold values. CSF TNCC >4.5 cells/μL had sensitivity and specificity of 17.3% (95% CI: 10.7%-25.7%) and 92.3% (95% CI: 85.4%-96.6%), respectively, for predicting short-term nonsurvival. CSF protein concentration >0.39 g/L had sensitivity and specificity of 20.9% (95% CI: 13.7%-29.7%) and 91.4% (95% CI: 84.2%-96.0%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: CSF analysis above threshold values used in this study is associated with increased odds of short-term nonsurvival.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".