Relationship between the ratio of optic nerve sheath diameter to eyeball transverse diameter and morphological characteristics of dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of ocular ultrasonography for measurement of the ratio of optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) to eyeball transverse diameter (ETD) in dogs with various morphologies and to evaluate the interobserver reliability of the ONSD/ETD ratio and its correlation with various morphological variables. ANIMALS: 45 healthy dogs of various breeds. PROCEDURES: Height, head circumference, body weight, body condition score, intraocular pressure, and blood pressure were recorded for each dog. Unsedated dogs underwent bilateral ocular ultrasonography once. A veterinarian and board-certified ophthalmologist who were unaware of subject signalment independently reviewed the ultrasonographic videos and selected 1 image for each eye on which the ETD and ONSD were measured. The ONSD/ETD ratio was calculated and compared between the 2 observers. Correlations between the ONSD/ETD ratio and various physiologic and morphological variables were assessed. RESULTS: 172 ONSD/ETD ratios were recorded. The ONSD/ETD ratio was calculated for at least 1 eye for 44 of the 45 (98%) dogs. Mean ± SD time required to complete the ultrasonographic examination was 90 ± 30 seconds (range, 15 seconds to 3 minutes). The mean ± SD ONSD/ETD ratio was 0.17 ± 0.01 (range, 0.15 to 0.20). The ONSD/ETD ratio did not differ significantly between the left and right eyes or the 2 observers and was not correlated with any of the variables assessed. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Ocular ultrasonography was a rapid, noninvasive, and reliable method for measurement of the ONSD/ETD ratio. The ONSD/ETD ratio did not appear to be influenced by dog morphology.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".