MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008354297 · doi:10.1101/2020.02.25.964262

Clinical epidemiology of congenital heart diseases in dogs: prevalence, popularity and volatility throughout twenty years of clinical practice

2020· preprint· en· W3008354297 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
PG Brambilla, M. Polli, Danitza Pradelli, Moshe Z. Papa, Rita Rizzi, Mara Bagardi, Claudio Bussadori

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Conditions and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDuctus arteriosusEpidemiologyPulmonic stenosisPopulationPediatricsRetrospective cohort studyStenosisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The epidemiology of Congenital Heart Diseases (CHDs) has changed over the past twenty years. We evaluated the prevalence of CHDs in the population of dogs recruited in a single referral center (RC); compared the epidemiological features of CHDs in screened breeds (Boxers) versus nonscreened (French and English Bulldogs and German Shepherds), investigated the association of breeds with the prevalence of CHDs, determined the popularity and volatility of breeds over a 20-year period; and analysed the trends of the most popular breeds in the overall population of new-born dogs registered in the Italian Kennel Club from 1st January 1997 to 31st December 2017. This was a retrospective observational study, the cardiological database of the RC was analysed, and 1,779 clinical records fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Descriptive statistics and frequencies regarding the most representative breeds and CHDs were generated. A logistic regression model was used to analyse the trends of the most common CHDs found in single breeds (French Bulldog, English Bulldog, Boxer, and German Shepherd), and in groups of breeds (brachycephalic breeds and the most represented large breeds). The relationships between the breed popularity and the presence of CHDs was studied. The most common CHDs were Pulmonic Stenosis (34,1%), Patent Ductus Arteriosus (26,4%), Subaortic Stenosis (14,6%), Ventricular Septal Defect (4,8%), Aortic Stenosis (4,7%), Tricuspid Dysplasia (3,4%), Atrial Septal Defect (1,9%), Double Chamber Right ventricle (1,8%), Mitral Dysplasia (1,6%), and reverse Patent Ductus Arteriosus (0,7%). The most represented pure breeds were Boxer (19,4%), German Shepherd (9,4%), French Bulldog (6,2%), English Bulldog (4,9%), Maltese (3,7%), Newfoundland (3,1%), Rottweiler (3,1%), Golden Retriever (3,0%), Chihuahua (2,8%), Poodle (2,5%), Cavalier King Charles Spaniel (2,2%), American Staffordshire Terrier (2,1%), Labrador Retriever (2,3%), Dobermann (2,1%), Miniature Pinscher (2,0%), Cocker Spaniel (2,0%), Yorkshire Terrier (1,7%), Dogue de Bordeaux (1,6%), Dachshund (1,6%), and Bull Terrier (1,5%). Chihuahuas, American Staffordshire Terriers, Border Collies, French Bulldogs, and Cavalier King Charles Spaniel were the most appreciated small and medium breeds, all of which showed a high value of volatility. In conclusion, this study found evidence for the value of the screening program implemented in Boxers, which decreased the prevalence of Subaortic Stenosis and Pulmonic Stenosis. However, fashions and trends influence dog owners’ choices more than the worries of health problems frequently found in a breed. Effective breeding programs are needed in order to control the diffusion of CHDs without impoverishing the genetic pool; in addition, dog owners should be educated, and the breeders supported by a network of veterinary cardiology centers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicCardiovascular Conditions and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207