ACVIM consensus statement on diagnosis and management of urinary incontinence in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urinary incontinence (UI) is a disorder of micturition that can occur in dogs of any age, sex, and breed depending on the underlying cause and time of onset. Diagnosis and treatment for various causes of UI in dogs have been described by multiple comprehensive single author review articles, but large prospective clinical trials comparing treatment outcomes in veterinary medicine are lacking. The objectives of this consensus statement therefore are to provide guidelines on both recommended diagnostic testing and treatment for various causes of UI in dogs. Specifically, pathophysiology directly related to the canine urinary system will be reviewed and diagnostic and therapeutic challenges will be addressed. A panel of 12 experts in the field (8 small animal internists [L. Adams, J. Bartges, A. Berent, J. Byron, J. Foster, A. Kendall, S. Vaden, J. Westropp], 2 neurologists [J. Coates, N. Olby], 1 radiologist [G. Oetelaar], and 1 surgeon [C. Adin]) was formed to assess and summarize evidence in the peer-reviewed literature and to complement it with consensus recommendations using the Delphi method. Some statements were not voted on by all panelists. This consensus statement aims to provide guidance for management of both male and female dogs with underlying storage or voiding disorders resulting in UI.
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 | 0.068 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
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".