Comparison of M mode echocardiographic ratio indices in two breeds of dog: Effect of variable age and body weight on cardiac indices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study was conducted at TVCC-RVP IVRI, Izatnagar, Bareilly on 34 dogs of two different breeds, i.e.Spitz and Labrador Retriever.Seventeen healthy dogs of each breed were included and randomly divided into three groups of varying ages containing at least 5 animals in each group.M mode echocardiographic parameters were recorded for each animal for left ventricular cardiac measurements.The raw M mode measurements were divided by weight based aortic root dimension to obtain weighted echocardiographic ratio indices which are assumed to be least affected by body weight and size, and can be used for direct comparison between patient groups.Ratio indices were statistically analyzed to determine the effect of varying age and breed.Weighted left ventricular dimensions were correlated with body weight through Pearson's correlation coefficient to determine the effect of varying body weight over weighted ratio indices.The results signify a non-significant effect of breed, age, and body weight on derived ratio indices and thus can be suggested to be used for direct comparison for cardiac disease diagnosis in dogs despite of wide range of body weight.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".