MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320077784 · doi:10.58292/ct.v14.9303

Failure of pregnancy in horses and camelids

2022· article· en· W4320077784 on OpenAlexaff
Robert A. Foster

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Theriogenology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPregnancyAbortionFetusMedicinePathologyBiopsyObstetricsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Determining pregnancy failures in horses and camelids is approached as a diagnostic investigation of an individual animal. Itbegins with the preliminary discussion around expectations of the investigation and apparently, diagnostic success rate is highin horses. However, diagnostic success in camelids is low. General approach from a pathology point of view is to identify severalof noninfectious fetal and fetal membranes’ lesions and then determine the potential infectious causes; agents include viruses,eubacteria, protozoa, and fungi. Bacterial and fungal infections are mostly ascending infections whereas viral and protozoal aresystemic infections. When an infectious cause is excluded, the focus is directed on potential noninfectious causes and particularlythose with detectible lesions. Maternal evaluation, specifically, via endometrial biopsy and examination of fetus and fetal membranes(including umbilical cord) in horses, normally provide an explanation for noninfectious failure of pregnancy in severalcircumstances. Special attention should be given to fetal thyroid gland, tracheal contents, and musculoskeletal system, particularly,the medulla of long bones. In horses, noninfectious failure of pregnancy with no lesions (idiopathic abortion) is observed in asmall percentage of cases. In camelids, it is a common ‘diagnosis.’

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical TheriogenologySame topicReproductive Physiology in LivestockFrench-language works237,207