Clinicopathological Features, Risk Factors and Predispositions, and Response to Treatment of Eosinophilic Oral Disease in 24 Dogs (2000-2016)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to retrospectively describe clinicopathological features of eosinophilic oral disease in dogs, to identify possible risk factors or predispositions to the condition, and to report overall treatment response. Canine medical records from a veterinary teaching hospital and private referral practice over a 17-year period were reviewed for a diagnosis of eosinophilic oral disease. Twenty-four dogs with 26 lesions met the inclusion criteria. Patient mean age and body weight were 6.8 (3.8) years and 13.4 kg, respectively. Fifteen breeds were represented including Cavalier King Charles spaniel (16.7%), Labrador retriever (12.5%), and West Highland white terrier (12.5%). Eosinophilic lesions were found in the palate (65.4%), tongue (26.9%), and other oral locations (7.7%). Median follow-up time was 5 months. Analysis revealed statistically significant associations between lesion location and body weight (palatal and tongue lesions were more likely in smaller dogs, whereas lesions in the other category [lip or mucosa] were more likely in larger dogs). There was a correlation in lesion location and resolution (all dogs with palatal lesions became asymptomatic at their last recheck), and resolution and the use of antibiotics plus prednisone (greater likelihood of resolution without the use of this combination). Seventy percent of asymptomatic dogs resolved without medication or with allergen therapy alone, suggesting that asymptomatic dogs may respond well to conservative management. No associations were found between lesion location and breed, signalment and response to therapy, lesion resolution and the use of glucocorticoids, or significance of peripheral eosinophilia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".