MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388947088 · doi:10.1002/vro2.77

Genotypic and allelic frequencies of progressive rod‐cone degeneration and other main variants associated with progressive retinal atrophy in Italian dogs

2023· article· en· W4388947088 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sara Ghilardi, Mara Bagardi, S. Frattini, Giulia E. Barbariga, Paola Brambilla, Giulietta Minozzi, M. Polli

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary Record Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreedGenotypeAlleleRetinal degenerationAllele frequencyPopulationGeneticsAtrophyBiologyMedicineInternal medicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Progressive retinal atrophy (PRA) is a group of canine inherited retinal disorders affecting up to 100 breeds. Genetic tests are available. The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the genetic variants associated with PRA among dogs residing in Italy. Methods Genetic data of 20 variants associated with different forms of PRA were collected through DNA tests over a 10‐year period for several dog breeds in the Italian canine population. Allelic and genotypic frequencies were calculated. Results A total of 1467 DNA tests were conducted for 1180 dogs. Progressive rod‐cone degeneration (PRCD) was the most tested form of PRA, with 58.15% ( n = 853) of the DNA tests. Among the widespread breeds in Italy, Labrador retrievers and toy poodles showed a prevalence of heterozygous carriers higher than 15%. Among the others, 175 DNA tests for golden retrievers (GR) showed a prevalence of heterozygous carriers of 13.04% ( n = 12) for GR‐PRA1 and 8.43% ( n = 7) for GR‐PRA2. The zwergschnauzer breed was tested for the type B and/or the type B1 forms of PRA with 25.32% ( n = 20) heterozygous carriers and 0%, respectively. Conclusion The study offers an overview of the prevalence of PRCD and other PRA forms within some of the most popular breeds in Italy.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.549
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVeterinary Record OpenSame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207