Epidemiological study of congenital heart diseases in dogs: Prevalence, popularity, and volatility throughout twenty years of clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The epidemiology of Congenital Heart Diseases (CHDs) has changed over the past twenty years. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of CHDs in the population of dogs recruited in a single referral center (RC); compare the epidemiological features of CHDs in screened breeds (Boxers) versus non-screened (French and English Bulldogs, German Shepherds); investigate the association of breeds with the prevalence of CHDs; determine the popularity and volatility of breeds over a 20-year period; analysed the trends of the most popular breeds in the overall population of new-born dogs registered in the Italian Kennel Club (IKC) from 1st January 1997 to 31st December 2017. The RC's cardiological database was analysed, and 1,779 clinical records were included in a retrospective observation study. 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 and in cluster of breeds. The relationship between breed popularity and presence of CHDs was studied. The most common CHDs were Pulmonic Stenosis, Patent Ductus Arteriosus, Subaortic Stenosis, Ventricular Septal Defect, Aortic Stenosis, Tricuspid Dysplasia, Atrial Septal Defect, Double Chamber Right Ventricle, Mitral Dysplasia, and others less frequent. The most represented pure breeds were Boxer, German Shepherd, French Bulldog, English Bulldog, Maltese, Newfoundland, Rottweiler, Golden Retriever, Chihuahua, and others in lower percentage. Chihuahuas, American Staffordshire Terriers, Border Collies, French Bulldogs, and Cavalier King Charles Spaniel were the most appreciated all of which showed a high value of volatility. This study found evidence for the value of the screening program implemented in Boxers; fashions and trends influence dog owners' choices more than the worries of health problems in a breed. Effective breeding programs are needed in order to control the diffusion of CHDs without impoverishing the genetic pool.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".