Prevalence and therapeutic evaluation of using Serum anguillae and Urea pura in management of chronic kidney disease in dog
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study was conducted to assess the prevalence, haemato-biochemical and nephrosonographic alterations, and to compare the therapeutic efficacy of homeopathic and conventional medicines in dogs suffering from chronic kidney disease (CKD). Forty CKD-affected dogs, irrespective of age, breed or sex, presented at the Veterinary Clinical Complex, College of Veterinary Science, Khanapara, were randomly allocated into two groups (n=20 each). Group A received homeopathic formulations Serum anguillae 6X and Urea pura 30CH while Group B was administered conventional drugs (Rkleen and Renodyl). The overall prevalence of CKD was found to be 1.25%, with the highest incidence observed in Labrador Retrievers (0.64%) and dogs aged above 6 to 10 years (0.72%). Common clinical manifestations included inappetence, vomiting, polyuria, polydipsia, diarrhoea, pale mucous membranes, dehydration, lethargy, weight loss and haematuria. Haemato-biochemical evaluations revealed leukocytosis, elevated serum creatinine, BUN, phosphorus and potassium, along with decreased albumin and chloride levels. Urinalysis indicated proteinuria and increased urine protein-to-creatinine ratio. Nephrosonographic changes comprised increased cortical echogenicity, thickened renal cortices, loss of corticomedullary differentiation and wavy renal capsule. Both homeopathic and conventional therapies were found to be equally effective in managing CKD stages II and III, with homeopathy offering added economic advantage and no observed adverse effects. However, cases of stage IV CKD showed poor response to either therapeutic modality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".