Non‐neoplastic anal sac disorders in UK dogs: Epidemiology and management aspects of a research‐neglected syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Non-neoplastic anal sac disorders (ASD) are frequent presentations for dogs in primary-care practice but evidence-based information on disease occurrence and risk is sparse. This study estimates prevalence, breed associations and other risk factors as well as reporting on clinical management. METHODS: A cohort study of dogs attending VetCompass practices between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2013. Risk factor analysis used multivariable logistic regression methods. RESULTS: Of 104,212 dogs attending 110 UK practices, the 1-year period prevalence of ASD was 4.40% (95% CI: 4.22-4.57). Compared to crossbreds, six breeds showed increased odds of ASD (Cavalier King Charles spaniel, King Charles spaniel, Cockapoo, Shih-tzu, Bichon Frise and Cocker spaniel), and six breeds showed reduced odds (Labrador Retriever, Border collie, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Lurcher, German Shepherd Dog and Boxer). Brachycephalic types had 2.6 times the odds for ASD compared to dolichocephalic types. Medication prescribed for ASD included antimicrobials (n = 480, 20.24%) and analgesics (n = 284, 11.97%). Anal sacculectomy was performed in under 1% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: High prevalence, strong breed predispositions and evidence of severity suggested from the antimicrobial and analgesic therapies combined with current substantial knowledge gaps identify ASD as a key research-neglected syndrome in dogs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".