CARACTERIZACIÓN CLÍNICA Y EPIDEMIOLÓGICA DE LOS TIPOS DE EPILEPSIA IDIOPÁTICA CANINA: ESTUDIO RETROSPECTIVO EN 258 PERROS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim was to clinically and epidemiologically characterize different types of Canine Idiopathic Epilepsy (CIE). CIE was analyzed in 258 dogs, diagnosed according to the International Veterinary Epilepsy Task Force (IVETF) 2015 criteria (level I). Dogs with <2 years follow up, those that developed interictal neurological signs, and those with an unknown history were excluded. The breeds were grouped by genetic lineage into 5 groups (asian/african origin; terrriers/greyhounds/modern hunters; shepherds; mastiffs; mongrels). CIE was classified in: focal (FCIE); generalized (GCIE); and combined focal and generalized (CoCIE) (International League Against Epilepsy -ILAE 2017). The outcome of treatment was described according to the IVETF 2015 criteria. For each type of epilepsy, the association was analyzed with the variables age of onset, sex, reproductive status, weight, breed, group, and response to treatment, with a significance level of 5%. GCIE represented 57,36% of the cases; FCIE 30,23%, and CoCIE 12,4%. no significant associations were found for age of onset (median 3 years), or sex (males 58%). significant effect were found for group, breed, reproductive status, weight, and response to treatment. Group 2 prevails in FCIE (total 58,97%, Poodles 29%), followed by mongrels (25,64%) and group 4 (total 8,97%, Labrador retriever 6,41%). Mongrels prevail in GCIE (37,84%), followed by group 2 (total 39,19%; Poodle 26%; Beagle 5,40%). Mongrels represent 46,87% in CoCIE, followed by group 2 (total 43,75%; Poodle 21,87%; Vizsla 6,25%), and group 4 (Cane Corso 6,25%). Poodle is the breed most likely to have FCIE. The proportion of seizure-free dogs (79%) is higher in FCIE, with fewer anti-seizure medications used (83% monotherapy). The weight differs between FCIE, GCIE and CoCIE (median 9.5, 15 and 11 kg, respectively). As weight increases, the probability of therapeutic failure increases. Non sterilized females are more likely to present FCIE (29.5%). El objetivo fue caracterizar clínica y epidemiológicamente distintos tipos de Epilepsia Idiopática Canina (EIC). Se analizó la EIC en 258 perros, diagnosticados según los criterios del Grupo Internacional de Trabajo en Epilepsia Veterinaria (de su sigla en inglés, IVETF) 2015 (nivel I). Se excluyeron los perros con seguimiento <2 años, los que desarrollaron signos neurológicos interictales, y aquellos con antecedentes desconocidos. Se agruparon las razas por linaje genético en 5 grupos (origen asiático/africano; terriers/galgos/cazadores modernos; pastores; mastines; mestizos). Se clasificó la EIC en: focal (EICF); generalizada (EICG); y combinada focal y generalizada (EICCo) (Liga Internacional contra la Epilepsia, de su sigla en inglés, ILAE 2017). Se describiò el resultado del tratamiento según los criterios IVETF 2015. Para cada tipo de epilepsia se analizó la asociación con las variables edad de inicio, sexo, estado reproductivo, peso, raza, grupos y respuesta al tratamiento, con un nivel de significación del 5%. La EICG representó el 57,36% de los casos; la EICF el 30,23%, y la EICCo el 12,4%. No se encontraron asociaciones significativas para edad de inicio (mediana 3 años), ni sexo (machos 58%). Se encontró efecto significativo para grupo, raza, estado reproductivo, peso, y respuesta al tratamiento. El grupo 2 prevalece en la EICF (total 58,97%, Caniches 29%), seguido por los mestizos (25,64%) y el grupo 4 (total 8.97%, Labrador 6,41%). Los mestizos prevalecen en la EICG (37,84%), seguidos por el grupo 2 (total 39,19%; Caniche 26%, Beagle 5,40%). Los mestizos representan el 46,87% en la EICCo, seguidos por el grupo 2 (total 43,75%; Caniche 21,87%, Vizsla 6,25%), y el grupo 4 (Cane Corso 6,25%). El Caniche es la raza con más probabilidades de tener EICF. La proporción de perros libres de crisis (79%) es mayor en la EICF, con menor cantidad de medicamentos anticonvulsivantes utilizados (83% monoterapia). El peso difiere entre la EICF, EICG y EICCo (mediana 9.5, 15 y 11 kg, respectivamente) y, a mayor peso, mayor probabilidad de fracaso terapéutico. Las hembras enteras tienen mayor probabilidad de presentar EICF (29.5%).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".