MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309951242 · doi:10.1111/vec.13263

Prevalence of dog erythrocyte antigen 1 in a population of dogs tested in California

2022· article· en· W4309951242 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anna S. Bank, Kate S. Farrell, Steven Epstein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood groups and transfusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreedVeterinary medicineMedicinePopulationLabrador RetrieverAnimal scienceDemographyBiologyEnvironmental healthSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have evaluated the breed-specific prevalence of dog erythrocyte antigen (DEA) 1 in various geographic regions. However, few large-scale studies exist that describe breed prevalence of DEA 1 in the United States. KEY FINDINGS: From January 2000 to October 2020, 6469 dogs had their RBC antigen type determined and were included in the study. The overall prevalence of DEA 1 in all dogs was 61.2%. Of 50 breeds with sample sizes ≥20, 8 breeds had a high prevalence (≥90%) of DEA 1-positive blood type: Basset Hound, Bernese Mountain Dog, Brittany, Dachshund, Miniature Pinscher, Miniature Schnauzer, Pug, and Rottweiler. Four breeds had a high prevalence (≥90%) of DEA 1-negative blood type: Boxer, English Bulldog, Flat-Coated Retriever, and French Bulldog. Numerous breeds with a sample size <20 and ≥5 were found to have 100% prevalence of a DEA 1 blood type, although these findings need to be confirmed with a larger sample size. No statistical difference in any breed based on sex was found. The results in this study are consistent with previously reported data in other countries. SIGNIFICANCE: Knowledge of regional breed differences in DEA 1 prevalence can help to improve selection and recruitment of appropriate blood donor 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 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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical CareSame topicBlood groups and transfusionFrench-language works237,207