Comparison of lung ultrasound, chest radiographs, C-reactive protein, and clinical findings in dogs treated for aspiration pneumonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Comparison of clinical findings, chest radiographs (CXR), lung ultrasound (LUS) findings, and C-reactive protein (CRP) concentrations at admission and serial follow-up in dogs with aspiration pneumonia (AP) is lacking. HYPOTHESIS: Lung ultrasound lesions in dogs with AP are similar to those described in humans with community-acquired pneumonia (comAP); the severity of CXR and LUS lesions are similar; normalization of CRP concentration precedes resolution of imaging abnormalities and more closely reflects the clinical improvement of dogs. ANIMALS: Seventeen dogs with AP. METHODS: Prospective observational study. Clinical examination, CXR, LUS, and CRP measurements performed at admission (n = 17), 2 weeks (n = 13), and 1 month after diagnosis (n = 6). All dogs received antimicrobial therapy. Lung ultrasound and CXR canine aspiration scoring systems used to compare abnormalities. RESULTS: B-lines and shred signs with or without bronchograms were identified on LUS in 14 of 17 and 16 of 17, at admission. Chest radiographs and LUS scores differed significantly using both canine AP scoring systems at each time point (18 regions per dog, P < .001). Clinical and CRP normalization occurred in all dogs during follow up. Shred signs disappeared on LUS in all but 1 of 6 dogs at 1 month follow-up, while B-lines and CXR abnormalities persisted in 4 of 6 and all dogs, respectively. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Lung ultrasound findings resemble those of humans with comAP and differ from CXR findings. Shred signs and high CRP concentrations better reflect clinical findings during serial evaluation of 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".