Survival rates and factors associated with survival and laminitis of horses with acute diarrhoea admitted to referral institutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinicopathological findings and their association with the outcome and development of laminitis in horses with acute diarrhoea has not been investigated in a multicentre study across different geographic regions. OBJECTIVES: Describe and compare clinicopathologic findings of diarrhoeic horses between different geographic regions, survival rates and factors associated with non-survival and laminitis. STUDY DESIGN: Multicentre retrospective case series. METHODS: Information from horses with acute diarrhoea presenting to participating institutions between 2016 and 2020 was collected, and clinicopathological data were compared between surviving and non-surviving horses and horses that did and did not develop laminitis. Survival rates and seasonal and geographic differences were also investigated. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred thirty-eight horses from 26 participating institutions from 4 continents were included; 76% survived to discharge with no differences identified between geographic regions. The survival proportion of horses with SIRS and creatinine concentrations > 159 μmol/L was 55% (154/279) compared with 81% (358/437) for those with SIRS and creatinine concentrations < 159 μmol/L (p < 0.001). The survival proportion of horses with SIRS that had an L-lactate concentration > 2.8 mmol/L was 59% (175/298) compared with 81% (240/296) in horses with SIRS and L-lactate concentration < 2.8 mmol/L (p < 0.001). The proportion of horses that developed laminitis was lower in Europe (4%, 19/479) compared with North America (8%, 52/619), Australia (8%, 12/138) and Latin America (11%, 16/146) (p < 0.05). More horses developed laminitis in the summer (46%, 39/85) compared with winter (18%, 15/85), spring (18%, 15/85) and fall (19%, 16/85) (p < 0.01). Horses with laminitis had greater odds of non-survival than those without laminitis (OR: 3.73, 95% CI: 2.47-5.65). MAIN LIMITATIONS: Not all variables were available for all horses due to the retrospective nature. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicopathological findings in horses with acute diarrhoea and their association with survival are similar across geographic regions. However, developing laminitis secondary to diarrhoea is less common in Europe. In addition, factors associated with non-survival were indicative of disease severity and subsequent cardiovascular compromise.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".