MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Periodontal diseases and other dental disorders in dogs : An epidemiologic study

2021· article· en· W3213446134 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Praveen Kumar, Lovelin Shweta Xaxa

Bibliographic record

VenueINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOral microbiology and periodontitis research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)DentistryPremolarMolarPeriodontitisEpidemiologyOral hygieneOral and maxillofacial pathologyIncisorOrthodonticsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study determined the epidemiology of periodontal diseases among dogs. This study was conducted on 181 dogs older than 6 months to examine their oral cavities and gather information about their feeding habits. Periodontal diseases were reported in 59.67% of dogs. It was highest for Spitz (75.61%), followed by German shepherd (64.49%), Mongrel (61.53%), Labrador (51.02%) and other Non-descriptive breeds (33.9%). Compared to dogs fed only vegetarian diets, those fed non-vegetarian diets had few health problems. There was the highest incidence of dental problems among vegetarians (69.28%), followed by those given a combination of vegetarian and non-vegetarian diets (51.32%). Periodontitis was common in these dogs, regardless of its cause, and its incidence increased with age. Lesions were more severe in the premolar and molar regions than in the maxillary and mandibular incisor regions. The incidence of missing teeth increased with age. First premolars were the most commonly lost teeth, followed by other premolars and molars, where severe periodontitis was commonly found. The incidence and severity of calculus on teeth increased with age. Due to these findings, it is especially important to keep dogs’ dental hygiene in good condition and conduct continuous periodic examinations.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.332 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCESSame topicOral microbiology and periodontitis researchFrench-language works237,207