ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2024
Development and validation of a machine learning model for clinical wellness visit classification in cats and dogs.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integration of machine learning and viscoelastic testing to improve survival prediction in horses experiencing acute abdominal pain at a veterinary teaching hospital.Equine veterinary journal · 2026Article
- The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Herpesvirus Detection, Transmission, and Predictive Modeling: With a Special Focus on Marek's Disease Virus.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Early disease detection in veterinary care relies on identifying subclinical abnormalities in asymptomatic animals during wellness visits. This study introduces a model designed to distinguish between wellness and other types of veterinary visits. Objectives: The purpose of this study is to validate the use of a visit classification model compared to manual classification of veterinary visits by three board-certified veterinarians. Materials and methods: The algorithm was initially trained using a Gradient Boosting Machine model with a dataset of 11,105 clinical visits from 2012 to 2017 involving 655 animals (85.3% dogs and 14.7% cats) across 544 U.S. veterinary practices. Three validators were tasked with classifying 400 visits, including both wellness and other types of visits, selected randomly from the same database used for initial model training, aiming to maintain consistency and relevance between the training and application phases; visit classifications were subsequently categorized into "wellness" or "other" based on majority consensus among validators to assess the model's performance in identifying wellness visits. Results: The model demonstrated a specificity of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91 to 0.96), implying its accuracy in distinguishing non-wellness visits. The model had a sensitivity of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.80 to 0.92), indicating its ability to correctly identify wellness visits as compared to the annotations provided by veterinary experts. The balanced accuracy, calculated as 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87 to 0.93), further confirms the model's overall effectiveness. Clinical significance: The model exhibits high specificity and sensitivity, ensuring accurate identification of a high proportion of wellness visits. Overall, this model holds promise for advancing research on preventive care's role in subclinical disease identification, but prospective studies are needed for validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.