MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981770533 · doi:10.1111/vec.12894

Acute chlorfenapyr toxicity in 3 dogs from a single household

2019· article· en· W2981770533 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rachel B. Davy, Samantha Campos, Alex Lynch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDrug-Induced Ocular Toxicity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChlorfenapyrLabrador RetrieverToxicityGastric lavageVital signsConvalescenceAnesthesiaIngestionSurgeryInternal medicinePesticide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical characteristics of acute chlorfenapyr toxicity in 3 dogs from a single household. CASE SUMMARY: A 4-year-old neutered female Labrador Retriever was presented with severe hyperthermia (42.6°C [108.6°F]). Emergency management consisting of fluid resuscitation, active cooling, general anesthesia, gastric lavage, activated charcoal administration, and intravenous lipid emulsion was started immediately on the suspicion of toxin exposure. The dog developed symptoms following peracute death in 2 other small breed dog housemates. All dogs had a rapid onset of gastrointestinal signs, neurologic signs, and panting. The dog made a rapid and complete recovery and was discharged 48 hours later. Examination of gastric contents collected from the deceased dogs identified the presence of chlorfenapyr. NEW OR UNIQUE INFORMATION PROVIDED: This is the first reported case of chlorfenapyr toxicity in dogs. Previous case reports in human medicine have reported a variable mortality rate, although 1 of 3 dogs described here made a complete recovery. Chlorfenapyr should be considered in cases of suspected toxicity with similar presenting signs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical CareSame topicDrug-Induced Ocular ToxicityFrench-language works237,207