Retrospective evaluation of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in 68 dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of clinical data on hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) in dogs. HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES: To investigate signalment, clinical signs, diagnostic findings, and survival in dogs with HCM. ANIMALS: Sixty-eight client-owned dogs. METHODS: Retrospective multicenter study. Medical records were searched between 2003 and 2015. The diagnosis of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy was made by echocardiographic examination. RESULTS: Three hundred and forty-five dogs with LV hypertrophy were identified, of which 277 were excluded. The remaining 68 dogs were 0.3 to 14 years old and predominantly <10 kg (85%), and without a sex predilection. Twenty-four % were Shih Tzu and 24% terrier breeds. Most (80%) had a systolic heart murmur. Owner-determined exercise intolerance (37%) and syncope (18%) were most commonly reported signs. The majority (84%) of dogs had symmetrical LV hypertrophy, whereas asymmetrical septal and LV free wall hypertrophy was observed in 9% and 6% of dogs, respectively. Isolated basal interventricular septal hypertrophy was not observed. Commonly recorded were systolic anterior motion of the mitral valve (60%) and LV diastolic dysfunction (89% of dogs where diastolic function was evaluated). Six dogs died unexpectedly, and 3 developed congestive heart failure. Known survival times were between 1 day and 114 months after diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in dogs should be considered as a differential diagnosis if LV hypertrophy is identified. Small breed dogs are overrepresented, and it is uncommon for dogs with HCM to develop CHF although sudden death can occur.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".