ArticleVeterinary research communications2026
A light-weight symptom checker and its methodological validation.
Article in Veterinary research communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEarly recognition of diseases in pets is essential, yet owners often face challenges in interpreting clinical symptoms. Digital symptom checkers offer a promising approach to encode veterinary knowledge, but their reliability and diagnostic accuracy remain largely unvalidated. This study addresses this gap through a method validation of a expert-knowledge-based veterinary symptom checker using synthetically generated test cases, enabling systematic exploration of the symptom-disease space in the absence of clinical data.
methodsSystem performance was quantified using simulated user-checker dialogs across [Formula: see text]550 diseases for dogs and cats, respectively. Robustness and efficiency were evaluated through three research questions: convergence probability, convergence speed, and structural factors influencing convergence.
resultsThe system achieved full convergence under ideal conditions (100%), with rapid convergence (mean rank of one after [Formula: see text]20 questions) and short response times (0.213-0.258 msec per disease). Under probabilistic user-answering strategies, performance decreased slightly but remained robust, with non-converging cases rare and correct diagnoses typically among top-ranked results (ranks 1-6 for dogs; 1-4 for cats). Structural analysis identified the number and uniqueness of symptoms as key predictors of diagnostic difficulty, with significant variation across anatomical regions. DISCUSSION: Findings confirm the system's internal consistency, robustness, and computational efficiency, establishing a validated foundation for evidence-based veterinary diagnostic support. Future work will include clinical and user studies to confirm performance under authentic conditions and address current limitations of synthetic data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.