Comparison of timing of relapse in dogs with nonassociative immune-mediated hemolytic anemia, thrombocytopenia, or polyarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Relapse is a clinical concern in dogs diagnosed with immune-mediated hemolytic anemia (IMHA), thrombocytopenia (ITP), or polyarthritis (IMPA). The average time to relapse is unknown, and evidence that vaccination is associated with disease relapse is lacking. HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES: Compare the incidence of relapse in groups of dogs with IMHA, ITP, or IMPA over a 24-month period after diagnosis and compare proportions of dogs that received vaccines in those dogs that did and did not relapse. ANIMALS: One hundred sixty client-owned dogs (73 with IMHA, 55 with ITP, 32 with IMPA). METHODS: Medical records of dogs were reviewed with the goal of following cases for a minimum of 2 years. Incidence of relapse was calculated for each disease, and relapse rates in dogs that were or were not vaccinated after diagnosis were compared. RESULTS: Relapse rates at 12 months differed significantly among disease groups (P = .02), with a higher rate for IMPA (35%) compared to IMHA (11%) or ITP (11%). Relapse rate at 24 months was 41% for IMPA, 18% for IMHA, and 23% for ITP. Ninety percent of IMPA relapses occurred in the first 12 months after diagnosis, compared with 56% for IMHA and 50% for ITP. Vaccine administration after diagnosis was not associated with relapse (P = .78). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Risk of disease relapse in IMPA is highest in the first year after diagnosis, with a higher relapse rate compared with IMHA and ITP. The role of vaccination in disease relapse remains unclear.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".