Treatment of fungal urinary tract disease in dogs and cats: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fungal urinary tract disease has been poorly studied in veterinary medicine. While it is an uncommon condition, identification of fungal cystitis or pyelonephritis raises many clinical questions about optimal management practices. To better understand optimal management approaches and inform guideline development, a scoping review was to identify available evidence pertaining to treatment of fungal urinary tract disease in dogs and cats. After de-duplication and relevance screening, 28 studies were included in the synthesis). Twenty-six (93 %) were single case reports and 2 (7.1 %) were case series' describing fungal infections in 16 (62 %) dogs and 10 (38 %) cats. Antifungal treatment of cystitis, pyelonephritis, funguria and fungal balls was described, with variable drugs and regimens. Varied treatment approaches and outcomes have been reported, but controlled trials are lacking. In lieu of that, larger and more structured multicentre observational studies are needed to better understand treatment approaches and inform evidence-based guidelines.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".