MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412524329 · doi:10.9734/acri/2025/v25i71374

The Study of Emerging Trends of Hospital Occurrence of Surgical Ophthalmic Diseases in Dogs

2025· article· en· W4412524329 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rajasekaran Tiruppur Manikumar, Shashi Kant Mahajan, N. Umeshwori Devi, Jasmeet Singh Khosa, Arun Anand

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Current Research International · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOphthalmic surgerySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: To study the emerging trends of hospital occurrence of the surgical ophthalmic diseases in dogs. Place and Duration of Study: Department of Veterinary Surgery and Radiology, College of Veterinary Science, Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana, Punjab, India during the period from October 2020 to March 2021. Methodology: The study was conducted on the dogs presented to the hospital clinics for primary ocular ailments with the objective of reporting the various ocular affections observed in dogs. Results: A total of 141 dogs were studied over a period of six months with the younger dogs most commonly presented for ocular affections than the adult and senile dogs. The incidence of ocular disorders was more in male animals compared to the female animals. Pugs were the most frequently presented breed of dogs for ocular affections followed by Labrador Retriever and Spitz. Bilateral affections were more common than the affections of either right or left eye and cornea was the most commonly affected anatomical structure of the eye followed by the lens and other structures of eye. Conclusion: Pigmentary keratitis, cataract, traumatic proptosis and corneal ulcers were the most common ocular affections observed in more than 50 percent of the study population.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.410 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Current Research InternationalSame topicOcular Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207