Anticoagulant rodenticide toxicity in dogs: A retrospective study of 349 confirmed cases in Saskatchewan.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the signalment and clinical, laboratory, treatment, and outcome features of dogs diagnosed with anticoagulant rodenticide (AR) intoxication in Saskatchewan. Animals: We studied 349 dogs. Procedure: Medical records from the Veterinary Medical Centre (Saskatoon, Saskatchewan) between 1999 and 2022 were reviewed. Cases were included if they met at least 1 of the following criteria: owner witnessed the dog ingesting an AR; AR was seen in the vomitus when emesis was induced; the dog had clinical signs of coagulopathy, with elevation of PT ± aPTT that normalized after vitamin K1 therapy, in the presence of appropriate clinical and paraclinical data and the absence of other causes of hypocoagulable state determined by the primary clinician. Results: = 0.017). Eighty-six percent of dogs with AR-induced hemorrhage survived to discharge. Conclusion and clinical relevance: The pleural space was the most common site of hemorrhage. Moderate thrombocytopenia was a common finding. Eighty-six percent of dogs with AR-induced hemorrhage survived to discharge.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".