MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021062223 · doi:10.21887/ijvsbt.15.4.4

Periodontal Diseases and their Surgical Management in Dogs

2020· article· en· W3021062223 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
SH Talekar, M D Khatariya, AR Ahlawat, V.D. Dodia, VA Kalaria

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œIndian journal of veterinary sciences and biotechnology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Topicdental development and anomalies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)Retrospective cohort studyBreedCalculus (dental)DentistryInternal medicineAnimal science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present retrospective surveillance (n = 48) and actual dental scaling (n = 20) work were conducted on dogs of either sex from 2 to 12 years in different breeds with periodontal diseases (PD) presented to the VCC, Junagadh. Among the 48 retrospective cases, the higher incidence was recorded in dogs above 6 years of age (56.25 %) followed by 3-6 years (37.5 %) and less than 3 years of age (6.25 %), particularly affecting male dogs (70.83 %). Pomeranian/Spitz breed was affected the most (39.58 %, 19/48), followed by German shepherd (16.67 %), Labrador retriever (14.58 %), non-descript (14.58 %), and other 4 to 6%. The highest incidence of stage 4 PD was noticed in the dogs of > 6 years of age (53.84 %). Among 20 dogs of the current year, the major complaint was halitosis (70 %) and sticky salivation (55 %), followed by anorexia (35 %), pawing at mouth (20 %) and facial swelling (15 %). 11 out of 20 dogs (55 %) were maintained on a purely vegetarian diet and rest 9 (45 %) on veg and non-veg diet. Oral examination of dogs revealed a varying degree of dental plaque in all 20 cases (100 %), followed by dental calculus (85 %), gingival recession (45 %), gingival hyperplasia (30 %) and tooth fracture (15 %). Plaque index (PI) 2 was observed maximum in 11 (55 %) dogs, followed by PI 1 in 7 (35 %) and PI 3 in 2 (10 %) dogs. Dogs suffered maximum with CI 2 type calculus (45 %), followed by CI 1 (25 %) and CI 3 (20 %). Furcation of a varying degree was noticed only in 8 40% dogs out of 20, which was classified as FE 1 in 4 (20 %), followed by FE 3 and FE 2 in 2 cases each (10 %). In 13 out of 20 dogs, periodontal probing depth was less than 3 mm, whereas it was 4 mm and > 5 mm in 4 (20 %) and 3 (15 %) dogs, respectively. Most effective dental scaling could be performed under diazepam-ketamine general anesthesia by using an ultrasonic piezo scaler tip at a 45° angle to the tooth surface for removal of calculus.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œIndian journal of veterinary sciences and biotechnologySame topicdental development and anomaliesFrench-language works237,207