MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7074002237

Factors associated with development of Canine Infectious Respiratory Disease Complex (CIRDC) in dogs in 5 Canadian small animal clinics

2016· article· en· W7074002237 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed Central · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespiratory systemMycoplasmaVirusRespiratory diseaseEquine influenzaDisease
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the association between presence of respiratory pathogens and development of Canine Infectious Respiratory Disease Complex (CIRDC) in dogs in 5 Canadian small animal clinics. In total, 86 dogs were tested using a commercial PCR respiratory panel; 64 dogs were considered as cases and 22 were control dogs matched by veterinary clinic. No control animals (0/22) were positive for canine parainfluenza virus (CPIV), whereas 27/64 (42%) CIRDC cases were positive. Furthermore, 81% of case dogs tested positive for Mycoplasma cynos, compared with 73% of control dogs. Canine respiratory corona virus (CRCoV) was detected in no control dogs compared with 9.4% of clinical dogs. No animals were positive for any influenza virus type A present in the diagnostic panel. Presence of CPIV was associated (P < 0.01) with the occurrence of CIRDC after adjustment for demographic factors and presence of CRCoV (P = 0.09).

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 score0.445
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations18
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed CentralSame topicCell Image Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207