Diagnostic approaches, aetiological agents and their associations with <scp>short‐term</scp> survival and laminitis in horses with acute diarrhoea admitted to referral institutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An international description of the diagnostic approaches used in different institutions to diagnose acute equine diarrhoea and the pathogens detected is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To describe the diagnostic approach, aetiological agents, outcome, and development of laminitis for diarrhoeic horses worldwide. STUDY DESIGN: Multicentre retrospective case series. METHODS: Information from horses with acute diarrhoea presenting to participating institutions between 2016 and 2020, including diagnostic approaches, pathogens detected and their associations with outcomes, were compared between institutions or geographic regions. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred and thirty-eight horses from 26 participating institutions from 4 continents were included. Overall, aetiological testing was limited (44% for Salmonella spp., 42% for Neorickettsia risticii [only North America], 40% for Clostridiodes difficile, and 29% for ECoV); however, 13% (81/633) of horses tested positive for Salmonella, 13% (35/262) for N. risticii, 9% (37/422) for ECoV, and 5% (27/578) for C. difficile. C. difficile positive cases had greater odds of non-survival than horses negative for C. difficile (OR: 2.69, 95%CI: 1.23-5.91). In addition, horses that were positive for N. risticii had greater odds of developing laminitis than negative horses (OR: 2.76, 95%CI: 1.12-6.81; p = 0.029). MAIN LIMITATIONS: Due to the study's retrospective nature, there are missing data. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted limited diagnostic investigations in cases of acute equine diarrhoea. Detection rates of pathogens are similar to previous reports. Non-survival and development of laminitis are related to certain detected pathogens.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".