Overview

This dataset contains 2,000 LLM-generated pet health symptoms text samples covering 5 common pet health condition categories, designed to train ML models for automated pet health classification. Each entry is labeled with: - Pet health condition (1 of 5 distinct classes)
- Record type (Owner Observation or Clinical Notes)

Owner observations are expressed in everyday language (e.g., "My cat scratches constantly"), whereas clinical notes contain veterinary terminology (e.g., "Pruritus with alopecia").

Features

• text: One concise sentence describing the pet health symptoms
• condition: Skin Irritations, Digestive Issues, Parasites, Ear Infections, Mobility Problems
• record_type: Owner Observation, Clinical Notes

Classification Types

• Binary Classification (record_type)
• Multi-class Classification (condition)
• Multi-task Classification (condition and record_type)

Potential Use Cases

• Pet health chatbots for owners to assess symptoms
• Automated triage systems for veterinary clinics
• Educational tools for vet student training
• Insurance claim processing for analyzing unstructured pet health records
• EHR integration (structuring historical clinical notes)

Limitations

• Synthetic data: Simulated but not real clinical records
• Limited scope: Covers only 5 common conditions
• Species bias: Primarily cats/dogs (few exotic pet examples)
• Language simplicity: Lacks complex medical edge cases
• Demographic gaps: No age/breed metadata for analysis

Provenance

• Synthetic data generated by Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental, with prompts stating output format, condition classes, record_type classes, number of samples required, and "maximize your creativity, generate unique data, avoid duplicate data"
• Logo image generated by Mistral AI Le Chat (Black Forest Labs Flux Ultra) with the prompt "Silhouettes of vet and pets, overlapping circles with health issue symbols."

Data Dictionary:animal id - Unique identifying number assigned to each specific animaltag number - Unique identifying number assigned to each individual tagtag type- The type of tag or permit purchasedLIC 3Y 3yr spayed/neutered licenseLIC 3YSR 3yr senior spayed/neutered licenseLIC ALTERED 1 year spayed/neutered licenseLIC ASST 1 year assistance animal licenseLIC DD1 year dangerous dog licenseLIC MULTIPLE 1 year discounted license when they license more than 3 animalsLIC PDD 1 year potentially dangerous dog licenseLIC SR 1 year senior altered licenseLIC UNALTERED 1 year non spayed or neutered licensePER ADV Animal Drawn Vehicle permitPER BOARDING Boarding permitPER CIRCUS Circus permitPER CIRCUS EL Elephant Ride permitPER CLASS A Class A kennel licensePER HS Animal Welfare Group permitPER PS NOSELL Pet Shop not selling dogs, cats or ferrets permitPER PS SELL Pet shop selling dogs, cats or ferrets permitPER STABLE Stable permitPER SWINE Swine permitRAB VAC CERT. Rabies vaccination tagRABIES CERT Rabies vaccination tagtag date - The date the tag was issued to the ownertag expire - The date that the tag expirestag status - The status of the tag or permitCURRENT Tag is currentDEAD Pet is deceasedDUPLICATE Owner lost the tag and it is replacedEXPIRED Tag is expiredGAVE AWAY Owner gave pet away to new owner and did not transfer tagLOST Owner no longer has the petMOVED Owner no longer lives in Jefferson CountyMOVED JEFF Owner no longer lives in Jefferson CountyNO REASON Did not give a reasonNOT MY PET Owner no longer has the petNOT OWNER Owner no longer has the petRENEWED New license has been issuedREPLACED Owner lost the tag and it is replacedRETUR MAIL Owners moved and the tag is undeliverableREVOKED Tag or permit taken away due to violationsTEMPORARY Issued to a person until requirements are metTURN IN Owner no longer has the petUNKNOWN Did not give a reasonvax date- The date the animal was given a rabies vaccinationvax expire- The date the rabies vaccination expirescity, state, zip code - The city, state and zip code associated with the owner of the animals addressanimal type- Type of animal associated with the tagsex- The sex of the animalM maleF femaleN neuteredS spayedU unknownpet dob- The date of birth of the animalbites- Does the animal have a bite reported to MASY yesN nocolor - The color of the animalbreed - The breed of animalvet name - The name of the vet or agency that administered the rabies vaccination.Contact:Adam HamiltonAdam.Hamilton@louisvilleky.gov

Notice: This dataset is currently undergoing maintenance due to a software transition affecting animal license data. The information available is current as of September 15th. Updates will be provided to the data once the new system is fully implemented. Animal Services Provides for the care and control of animals in the Louisville Metro area, including pet licensing and pet adoption. Data Dictionary:Field NameField Descriptionanimal idUnique identifying number assigned to each specific animaltag numberUnique identifying number assigned to each individual tagtag typeThe type of tag or permit purchasedLIC 3Y3yr spayed/neutered licenseLIC 3YSR3yr senior spayed/neutered licenseLIC ALTERED1 year spayed/neutered licenseLIC ASST1 year assistance animal licenseLIC DD1year dangerous dog licenseLIC MULTIPLE1 year discounted license when they license more than 3 animalsLIC PDD1 year potentially dangerous dog licenseLIC SR1 year senior altered licenseLIC UNALTERED1 year non spayed or neutered licensePER ADVAnimal Drawn Vehicle permitPER BOARDINGBoarding permitPER CIRCUSCircus permitPER CIRCUS ELElephant Ride permitPER CLASS AClass A kennel licensePER HSAnimal Welfare Group permitPER PS NOSELLPet Shop not selling dogs, cats or ferrets permitPER PS SELLPet shop selling dogs, cats or ferrets permitPER STABLEStable permitPER SWINESwine permitRAB VAC CERTRabies vaccination tagRABIES CERTRabies vaccination tagtag dateThe date the tag was issued to the ownertag expireThe date that the tag expirestag statusThe status of the tag or permitCURRENTTag is currentDEADPet is deceasedDUPLICATEOwner lost the tag and it is replacedEXPIREDTag is expiredGAVE AWAYOwner gave pet away to new owner and did not transfer tagLOSTOwner no longer has the petMOVEDOwner no longer lives in Jefferson CountyMOVED JEFFOwner no longer lives in Jefferson CountyNO REASONDid not give a reasonNOT MY PETOwner no longer has the petNOT OWNEROwner no longer has the petRENEWEDNew license has been issuedREPLACEDOwner lost the tag and it is replacedRETUR MAILOwners moved and the tag is undeliverableREVOKEDTag or permit taken away due to violationsTEMPORARYIssued to a person until requirements are metTURN INOwner no longer has the petUNKNOWNDid not give a reasonvax dateThe date the animal was given a rabies vaccinationvax expireThe date the rabies vaccination expirescitylocation information associated with the owner of the animals addressstatezip codeanimal typeType of animal associated with the tagsexThe sex of the animalMmaleFfemaleNneuteredSspayedUunknownpet dobThe date of birth of the animalbitesDoes the animal have a bite reported to MAS? (Y)es | (N)ocolorThe color of the animalbreedThe breed of animalvet nameThe name of the vet or agency that administered the rabies vaccinationContact:Adam HamiltonAdam.Hamilton@louisvilleky.gov

BackgroundCanine rabies causes about 59,000 human deaths each year globally but the disease can be eliminated by sustaining sufficient dog vaccination coverage over several consecutive years. A challenge to achieving high coverage is low participation of dog owners in vaccination campaigns. We explored whether and how previously identified contributory factors to low participation can be addressed through community engagement activities.MethodsWe engaged communities in two wards in Tanzania on dog behavior and handling, safe ways of interacting with dogs, and their perceptions of dog vaccination. We shared and elicited information from them through village meetings, video screenings, posters and leaflets and involved the leadership of one of the wards in planning and implementing a dog vaccination exercise to explore the feasibility of their participation. We assessed the impact of engagement activities with household surveys, meeting reports, observations and focus group discussions. We used a generalized linear mixed-effects model to identify predictors of knowledge and perceptions and compared knowledge amongst respondents before and after engagement activities. Qualitative data was analyzed inductively to explore perceptions of dog handling and vaccination and feasibility, opportunities and barriers to community leadership participation in organizing mass dog vaccination.Main findingsKnowledge of dog behavior, dog handling, and safe ways of interacting with dogs was positively associated with age (p < 0.0001), dog ownership (p = 0.0203), training (p = 0.0010) and previous experience of a dog bite (p = 0.0002); and was negatively associated with being afraid of dogs (p = 0.0061) and participation in a recent dog vaccination campaign (p = 0.0077). Knowledge was low before and significantly improved after engagement activities. The majority (92%) of respondents believed dog vaccination has no negative effects on dogs. Respondents perceived lack of bonding with their dog as a limitation to the ability to restrain a dog for vaccination. The community performed most roles assigned to them in the dog vaccination exercise, but barriers such as lack of motivation for volunteering exist.ConclusionEngaging communities regularly on dog vaccination can improve their knowledge of dog behavior and dog handling techniques, and may help improve owner participation in dog vaccination campaigns.

Control of dog-mediated rabies relies on raising awareness, access to post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) and mass dog vaccination. To assess rabies awareness in Moramanga district, Madagascar, where rabies is endemic, two complementary quantitative and qualitative approaches were carried out in 2018. In the quantitative approach, a standardized questionnaire was administered to 334 randomized participants living in 170 households located less than 5 km from the anti-rabies treatment center (ARTC) located in Moramanga city (thereafter called the central area), and in 164 households located more than 15 km away from the ARTC in two rural communes (thereafter called the remote area). Logistic regression models were fitted to identify factors influencing knowledge and practice scores. The qualitative approach consisted in semi-structured interviews conducted with 28 bite victims who had consulted the ARTC, three owners of biting dogs, three ARTC staff and two local authorities.Overall, 15.6% (52/334) of households owned at least one dog. The dog-to-human ratio was 1:17.6. The central area had a significantly higher dog bite incidence (0.53 per 100 person-years, 95% CI: 0.31–0.85) compared to the remote area (0.22 per 100 person-years, 95% CI: 0.09–0.43) (p = 0.03). The care pathway following a bite depended on wound severity, how the dog was perceived and its owner’s willingness to cover costs. Rabies vaccination coverage in dogs in the remote area was extremely low (2.4%). Respondents knew that vaccination prevented animal rabies but owners considered that their own dogs were harmless and cited access and cost of vaccine as main barriers. Most respondents were not aware of the existence of the ARTC (85.3%), did not know the importance of timely access to PEP (92.2%) or that biting dogs should be isolated (89.5%) and monitored. Good knowledge scores were significantly associated with having a higher socio-economic status (OR = 2.08, CI = 1.33–3.26) and living in central area (OR = 1.91, CI = 1.22–3.00). Good practice scores were significantly associated with living in central area (OR = 4.78, CI = 2.98–7.77) and being aware of the ARTC’s existence (OR = 2.29, CI = 1.14–4.80).In Madagascar, knowledge on rabies was disparate with important gaps on PEP and animal management. Awareness campaigns should inform communities (i) on the importance of seeking PEP as soon as possible after an exposure, whatever the severity of the wound and the type of biting dog who caused it, and (ii) on the existence and location of ARTCs where free-of-charge PEP is available. They should also encourage owners to isolate and monitor the health of biting dogs. Above all, awareness and dog vaccination campaigns should be designed so as to reach the more vulnerable remote rural populations as knowledge, good practices and vaccination coverage were lower in these areas. They should also target households with a lower socio-economic status. If awareness campaigns are likely to succeed in improving access to ARTCs in Madagascar, their impact on prompting dog owners to vaccinate their own dogs seems more uncertain given the financial and access barriers. Therefore, to reach the 70% dog vaccination coverage goal targeted in rabies elimination programs, awareness campaigns must be combined with free-of-charge mass dog vaccination.

IntroductionIn recent years, prices for veterinary care have received considerable attention in mainstream media, yet scientific literature has not delved into actual figures. This study aims to elucidate veterinary care costs for dogs, cats, and horses across five countries [Sweden (SE), Norway (NO), Denmark (DK), United Kingdom (UK), and Ireland (IR, with limited data)] through web searches.MethodsUtilising online business directories, we located URLs featuring veterinary care prices in autumn 2022, and repeated tri-monthly five times. Vetpris.se (VP), a price comparison site for SE, NO, and DK, emerged from the search. Additionally, we sought to compare price data from veterinary clinics (ranging from animal hospitals to small private clinics) using a similar approach to VP. We targeted elective procedures (e.g., gonadectomy, GDY) and common procedures (e.g., pyometra surgery in dogs).ResultsComparing data from the same clinics’ websites and from VP within extraction from autumn 2022 to winter 2023/2024, median prices for dog and cat GDY were largely consistent. By October 2023, median prices for male cat GDY ranged from €72 (SE) to €152 (DK), and €130 (SE) to €269 (NO) for females; for dog GDY from €390 (SE) to €438 (NO) for males, and €461 (UK) to €803 (NO) for females. Across sources, median prices for cat and dog GDY varied from a decrease of 1% to an increase of 31% over a year for procedures with at least 10 clinics per extraction. Equine GDY (per sedation and local analgaesia) in SE saw a 64% increase by year-end, with a median price of €492. Emergency surgeries during regular-hours (e.g., pyometra and caesarean section) in SE were approximately €2,300 at the last extraction, marking a 27% increase for pyometra surgery during regular-hours and 15% after-hours compared to the previous year. Variability existed within and across countries and diagnoses/procedures.DiscussionCross-validation suggested VP generally provided reliable information, though data points for emergencies were limited. Our web searching tool necessitated extensive manual verification, indicating room for further development. We recommend enhancing price transparency for animal owners to become better informed about the cost of veterinary care and be able to make informed choices.

IntroductionIn a 10–15-year period, veterinary clinics in Sweden and Norway, as elsewhere, have undergone widespread corporatisation. High veterinary care costs have received attention in the lay press and from competition authorities. Whether corporate chains and independent clinics differ in price levels and how clinic characteristics, such as on-call service, affect pricing is not well-documented. The aim was to analyse prices levels and price changes for various diagnoses/procedures for dogs, cats, and horses from clinics in Norway and Sweden and to examine the influence of affiliation (corporate chain, government-run, or independent), extraction date, and clinic characteristics (e.g., on-call service) on prices.Materials and methodsData from a price comparison site were extracted five times between 2 January 2023 and 2 January 2024. Prices for procedures such as vaccinations, gonadectomy, euthanasia, emergency care, diagnostic imaging, certification, and planned surgery were included. Descriptive statistics and mixed models were used to analyse effects of affiliation (Anicura, The Swedish District Vet Officers (DV), Dyrenes venn, Empet, Evidensia, Vettris, and independent), clinic characteristics (animal hospital or not, on-call service, and number of hours open Mon-Fri), and extraction date.ResultsPrices were analysed for 37 procedures (16 dogs, 11cats, and 10 horses) from 771 clinics, of which 502 (65%) were independent. Most clinics with corporate affiliation belonged to Evidensia and Anicura. In statistically significant comparisons, their prices were generally higher than those from the independent group. For Anicura, the median annual price increase (in Euro) was 8%, DV 5%, Dyrenes venn 53%, Empet 12%, Evidensia 15%, Vettris 7%, and the independent group 6%. Multivariable results generally corroborated the descriptive figures.DiscussionTargeting a range of procedures in two nearby countries, veterinary care prices varied with country, clinic characteristics, and affiliation. Clinics belonging to corporate chains charged higher prices than independent clinics. Most prices increased over the year. Possible reasons for the differences between clinics are investments in equipment or number of staff, expenditure on continued education of staff, or different demands for profit. Increased price transparency within veterinary care might reduce the impact of high prices and perhaps also limit price increases.

BackgroundRabies virus (RABV; species Lyssavirus rabies) is causing one of the oldest zoonotic diseases known to mankind, leading to fatal encephalomyelitis in animals and humans. Despite the existence of safe and effective vaccines to prevent the disease, an estimated 99% of human rabies deaths worldwide are caused by dog-mediated rabies with children at the highest risk of infection. Rabies has been endemic in Madagascar for over a century, yet there has been little research evaluating local knowledge and practices impacting on the rabies control and prevention. Thus, this study was undertaken to better understand the dog ecology including canine vaccine coverage and to assess knowledge and practices of dog owners and veterinarians.MethodologyA cross-sectional study was conducted among 123 dog-owning households in thirteen fokontanys in Mahajanga from July 4 to September 13, 2016. Single and multi-member dog-owning households in the study area on the day of the interview were eligible for inclusion and purposively selected with the support of a local guide. The survey included a household questionnaire capturing information on the dog’s demographics, husbandry practices, knowledge and practices towards rabies and its control measures; the dog ecology questionnaire collected dog characteristics, vaccination status and husbandry practices. All households that reported a dog bite incident, were invited to participate in a dog bite questionnaire. In addition, direct observations of roaming dogs were conducted to assess dog population demographics and to document behavioural characteristics. Two veterinarians were purposively selected and took part in an interview during the survey period, providing information on rabies control activities, including dog-care practices in the area. Descriptive and inferential data analyses were performed using Epi Info version 7.1.5.0 (CDC Atlanta, USA).ResultsWe recorded a total of 400 dogs, of which 338 (84.5%) were owned amongst 123 households. More than half (67.8%) of owned dogs were between 1 to 5 years old and 95.6% were kept for guarding purposes. 45% of the surveyed dogs had free access to roam outside the premises. The majority (85.4%) of dog owners were knowledgeable that a dog bite could potentially transmit RABV to humans. 19 dog bites were reported and of these 73.6% were caused by the owner’s or a neighbour’s dog. In 6 of the 19 cases, children between 7 and 15 years of age were the victims. Dog vaccination coverage against rabies was 34% among owned dogs. Of the participants aware of a veterinarian, the majority (55/82) indicated that they accessed veterinarian services at irregular intervals. The main obstacles to vaccinations cited by dog owners were limited financial resources and difficulty accessing veterinary care.ConclusionThis study contributes to enhanced understanding of the dog ecology including canine vaccine coverage as well as knowledge and practices of dog owners in Madagascar. Most dogs in the study area were accessible for preventive vaccination through their owners, however only one third of the investigated canine population was vaccinated against rabies. Concerted national efforts towards rabies prevention and control should aim to address financial challenges and access to veterinary services.

The Indonesian island province of Bali experienced its first rabies incursion in 2008. Mass vaccination of the dog population has proven effective and rabies cases in dogs and people have decreased, however the virus is still circulating among the dog population. Vaccination coverage must be maintained until rabies elimination. Increasing efficiency and effectiveness of vaccination campaigns is therefore desired. Community engagement leading to preventative health actions by community members can reduce disease incidence and costs of control. Here we evaluate 2 years of a novel community-based dog welfare and rabies control project (Program Dharma) in the Sanur sub-district. The project engaged the services of people living in the project area with an interest or experience in dogs or community health services. These people spoke with owners within their own community about dog welfare and health, monitored owned and unowned dogs and increased owner and carer efforts to access vaccination and further veterinary services. The evaluation focused on a sample of dogs whose owners had been regularly engaged with project. Vaccination coverage was increased and there were no dog or human rabies cases reported in the project area; the percentage of the dogs that had never been vaccinated was reduced by an average 28.3% (baseline unvaccinated 41–49%, post-project unvaccinated 11–19%). The welfare of dogs improved from an average of 20.7% of dogs with visible welfare problems at baseline to 2.7% after project implementation. Roaming dog density observed on street surveys also decreased in all project areas (24–47% reduction dependent on desa). A participatory evaluation event with a sample of Program Dharma community-based agents highlighted several additional successes, including that the community appeared to welcome and value their services and were beginning to support the cost of project activities. Conversely, challenges included identifying dogs in the database during revisits, sustaining the costs of community member time spent working on Program Dharma activities and the costs of veterinary care, whilst avoiding dependency of owners on free veterinary services. The benefits revealed by the evaluation were judged to be sufficient to extend Program Dharma to new areas, whilst evolving activities to resolve challenges.