Treatment approaches to horses with acute diarrhea admitted to referral institutions: A multicenter retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to describe and compare therapeutic approaches for horses with acute diarrhea in different geographic regions worldwide. METHODS: Clinical information was retrospectively collected from diarrheic horses presented to participating institutions between 2016 and 2020, including fluid therapy on admission, antimicrobial drugs, probiotics, anti-endotoxic medications, anti-inflammatory drugs, gastroprotectants, digital cryotherapy, and toxin-binding agents. Seasonal and geographic differences were investigated. RESULTS: 1438 horses from 26 participating hospitals from 5 continents were included. On admission, 65% (926/1419) of horses were administered a fluid bolus. Antimicrobial drugs were administered to 55% (792/1419) within the first 24 hours of admission, with penicillin and gentamicin being the most used combination (25%, 198/792). Horses with leukopenia (OR: 2.264, 95%CI: 1.754 to 2.921; P<0.001) or meeting systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria (OR: 2.542, 95%CI: 1.919 to 3.368; P<0.001) had higher odds of being administered antimicrobial drugs. Other treatments administered included probiotics (15%, 215/1438), polymyxin B (13%; 187/1438), pentoxifylline (8%; 118/1438), gastroprotectants (44%; 626/1419), digital cryotherapy (34%; 489/1435), plasma transfusion (13%; 182/1410) and toxin-binding agents (36%; 515/1438). LIMITATIONS: Due to the retrospective nature of the study, the rationale for treatment decisions was unavailable, and associations with survival could not be evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Treatments varied between hospitals from different geographic regions. Prospective clinical trials are required to evaluate the effects of various treatments on survival.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".