MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388126127 · doi:10.3389/fvets.2023.1211515

Tools and techniques for classifying behaviours in canine epilepsy

2023· review· en· W4388126127 on OpenAlexafffund
Lee Niel, Luís Gaitero, Fiona James

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Veterinary Science · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersOVC Pet Trust
KeywordsEpilepsyIctalAnxietyPsychologyAggressionActigraphyMedicinePsychiatryInsomnia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Idiopathic epilepsy is the most common neurological disease in dogs. Similar to humans, dogs with epilepsy often experience behavioural comorbidities such as increased fear, anxiety, and aggression, as reported by their caregivers. Investigations of behaviour in canine epilepsy have yet to untangle interictal and pre and postictal behaviours, prodromal changes, and seizure-precipitating factors. Under-recognition of absence and focal seizures further complicates these assessments. These complex behavioural presentations in combination with caring for an epileptic animal have a significant negative impact on the dog's and caregiver's quality of life. Despite the growing recognition of behavioural comorbidities and their impact on quality of life in dogs with epilepsy, few objective research methods for classifying and quantifying canine behaviour exist. This narrative review examines the strengths, limitations, and granularity of three tools used in the investigation of canine behaviour and epilepsy; questionnaires, electroencephalography, and actigraphy. It suggests that a prospective combination of these three tools has the potential to offer improvements to the objective classification and quantification of canine behaviour in epilepsy.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Veterinary ScienceSame topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207