Effect of time and storage on toxic or pseudo‐toxic change in canine neutrophils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The presence of toxic change in neutrophils is frequently used as a biomarker of inflammation in dogs. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the effect of time and storage on toxic change in canine neutrophils. METHODS: One hundred and fifty microliters of EDTA blood were obtained from eight dogs with no toxic neutrophil changes observed on fresh blood smears (T0). Blood was stored at room temperature (RT), in a box with an icepack (ICE), and at 4°C. For each storage condition, smears were prepared 2 (T2), 4 (T4), 8 (T8), and 24 (T24) hours post blood draw. Smears were randomized, and each smear was evaluated for the presence of toxic neutrophil change. RESULTS: A statistically significant effect of time and storage on the presence of toxic neutrophil change was observed. Compared with T0, the number of neutrophils containing Döhle bodies was significantly higher at T8 and T24 for the RT (P < 0.0001) and ICE (P < 0.0001) samples and at T24 for 4°C samples (P < 0.0001). Additionally, smears were falsely classified as having 1+ toxic change in 0/8 (T2), 1/8 (T4), 3/8 (T8), and 8/8 (T24) for RT samples; 0/8 (T2 and T4), 2/8 (T8), and 5/7 (T24) smears for ICE samples; and 0/8 (T2, T4, and T8) and 2/8 (T24) for 4°C samples. CONCLUSIONS: Smears can be falsely classified as having neutrophils with toxic change as early as 4 hours post blood draw in samples stored at RT, 8 hours when stored with icepacks, and 24 hours when stored at 4°C. Canine blood smears should be prepared and evaluated for toxic neutrophil change as early as possible.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".