Clinical application of the American College of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care (ACVECC) Consensus on the Rational Use of Antithrombotics in Veterinary Critical Care (CURATIVE) guidelines to small animal cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To illustrate the application of the Consensus on the Rational Use of Antithrombotics in Veterinary Critical Care (CURATIVE) guidelines to the management of dogs and cats at risk of developing thrombosis using a case-based approach. ETIOLOGY: Dogs and cats become at risk of developing thrombosis from a wide range of conditions. These conditions often involve a specific insult followed by an inflammatory response and when combined with other contributing factors (eg, hypercoagulability, vascular endothelial injury, hemodynamic changes) create favorable conditions for thrombosis. DIAGNOSIS: Development of thrombosis in small animals remains challenging to demonstrate. Compatible clinical signs, the presence of known risk factors, and supporting diagnostic tests may be highly suggestive of the development of thrombosis. THERAPY: Therapeutic recommendations in accordance with the CURATIVE guidelines for dogs and cats are described in specific case vignettes presented. Discussion is centered on antithrombotic drug choices and dosing protocols, as outlined in Domains 2 and 3 of the CURATIVE guidelines. Where appropriate, guidelines related to therapeutic monitoring (Domain 4) and discontinuation of antithrombotics (Domain 5) were included. PROGNOSIS: In small animals at risk of developing thrombosis, overall prognosis may be improved by following consensus-based recommendations on the use of antithrombotics as outlined in the CURATIVE guidelines. Whether such interventions have any impact on outcome requires further investigation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".