Informant discrepancy between caretakers in history reporting in veterinary dermatology.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Collection of medical history is essential for making informed clinical decisions in veterinary medicine. In veterinary dermatology, historical patterns may alter a clinician's diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations. Veterinary patient reporting has similarities to reporting in human pediatric medicine, in which clinician history is collected from caretakers instead of patients themselves. Informant discrepancy between medical histories taken from co-parents has been observed in human pediatric medicine but has not been assessed in veterinary medicine. Objective: The objective of this questionnaire-based, prospective, descriptive study was to investigate informant agreement among caretakers of veterinary dermatology patients. Participants and procedure: A caretaker history questionnaire was designed to assess the primary concern of the caretaker, seasonality and duration of clinical signs, pruritus score, areas of the body affected, dietary history, and medication history. At initial dermatology consultations, caretakers completed the questionnaire in separate rooms, as anonymized pairs. Agreement proportion was analyzed by calculating the proportion of pairs, among all pairs, in which both caretakers agreed. Results: Fifty-three paired responses (106 caretakers) volunteered for the study. Agreement was highest for histories of gastrointestinal signs (94.1%), skin disease exacerbation by diet (84.3%), and duration of disease (80.4%). Caretakers reported pruritus visual analogue scores within 2 score units of one another for 61.5% of patients. "Individual affected body part" agreement and "individual protein consumed" agreement proportions were 53.5 and 55.7%, respectively. The lowest agreement was seen for seasonality of disease (38.5%) and individual medication use (38.7%). Conclusion and clinical relevance: Our findings supported the concept that informant discrepancy exists between caretaker histories reported in veterinary dermatology, suggesting that all caretakers' histories should be taken into consideration.
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 | 0.022 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".