Etude des facteurs de risque des entérolithes chez les chevaux au Sénégal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Davis, University of California, equine enteroliths are the most common cause of colic requiring surgical intervention. In Senegal, during the past 10 years, 10 % of the horses from the Cercle de l’Etrier de Dakar (CED) died because of an enterolith obstruction. Yet, in France, this pathology is hardly described. The first part of this work is a bibliographic study about equine enteroliths. It describes the epidemiological and clinical aspects, the morphologic characteristics and the etiopathogenesis of the affection. Then the second part presents the results of several personal researches. The first research is an epidemiological and retrospective study, which aims to describe the cases of equine enteroliths in France, Belgium and Canada between 2005 and 2015. Twelve different clinics agreed to participate to that study by filling a survey. None of them mentioned an enterolith case stricto sensu, which leads to assume the existence of differences in worldwide enteroliths cases distribution. The second research is a descriptive study of twenty-four Senegalese equine enteroliths. It concludes that their morphological, chemical and mineralogical characteristics are the same as the ones described in North-American scientific literature. Eventually, the third research is an analytic case-control study aiming to compare two populations: « cases » subject to enteroliths from the CED and « controls » from the Poney Club de Hann (PCH). The study focuses mainly on the feeding conditions of the two populations located less than 2 km from one another. The results show that the contents of calcium, phosphorus and magnesium in the groundnut hay (fed to horses from the CED) were three to five times higher than those in the rice straw (fed to horses from the PCH). Furthermore, only the ration of the CED presented an important lack of balance between calcium and phosphorus with a ratio (Ca/P) of 3.1 with a magnesium intake superior to seven times the recommendations of the National Research Council. These results could be taken into account when examining the different prevalences of enteroliths between the CED and the PCH.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".