MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

STUDY ON THE INCIDENCE OF CANINE PYODERMA IN NAGPUR

2024· article· en· W4405822282 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sanjay Kale, C.G. Panchbhai, V.M. Dhoot, G.R. Bhojne, Y. Game, D.K. Chacharkar

Bibliographic record

VenueIndian Journal of Canine Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutoimmune and Inflammatory Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPyodermaIncidence (geometry)DermatologyMedicineVeterinary medicinePhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canine pyoderma significantly impacts affected animals, causing discomfort and a notable decline in their overall quality of life.The study was carried out in the Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, Ethics & Jurisprudence, Nagpur Veterinary College, Nagpur from June 2023 to December 2023.The comparative therapeutic efficacy of systemic, topical and mixed therapy was evaluated.The primary diagnosis of canine pyoderma was done using skin cytology and further confirmed by bacterial culture.Out of total 11657 dogs examined,1287 (11.04%) dogs that were found positive for skin diseases.Out of these, 223 (17.32%) dogs were found affected with pyoderma.The highest incidence of canine pyoderma was observed in dogs aged between 1 to 2 years.Males were found most susceptible.Labrador Retriever was found predominantly affected..The common clinical signs recorded were erythema, alopecia, pruritus, papules, and pustules.spp.was found to be the most common bacteria (96.77%), followed by E.coli (3.22%).Clindamycin and doxycycline demonstrated the highest level of antibiotic sensitivity when tested on Staphylococciisolates (n=30), while enrofloxacin demonstrated the highest level when tested on E.Coli isolates (n=1).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndian Journal of Canine PracticeSame topicAutoimmune and Inflammatory DisordersFrench-language works237,207