Ear cropping and tail docking - a comment.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Dear Sir, This is a comment regarding the most recent review articles in The Canadian Veterinary Journal (Can Vet J 2010;51:485–492; 598–604) on spinal cord injury by David Fowler et al, which was brought to my attention only recently. I found the article to be severely lacking in a comprehensive and basic understanding of the biology of spinal cord and central nervous system (CNS) injury/repair in general. Not mentioned in the article, for instance, was the extensive work done in the treatment of CNS injury by investigators whose work in the basic science should be made public to the veterinary community. Ironically, much of this work was done at the University of Saskatchewan and much of that in connection with the Department of Human Neurosurgery there. Specific therapies not mentioned included ways to control reactive gliosis (using rat optic nerve as a model of such) with Ara-C, cholorquine and 6-aminonicatinamide and promoting nerve growth/sprouting with use of effectively applied and oriented DC current, laminin, collagen type IV. As for the biology of the peri-axonal milieu, the ability of astrocytes and Schwann cells to thrive in anaerobic environments due to their high complement of glutamine synthetase and lactic dehydrogenase is worthy of mention, as well as the synthesis of a protein specific to reactive glial-enriched tissue which may provide a specific marker for control of reactive astrocytes. In addition, the use of peripheral nerve grafts and explants of peripheral nerve was mentioned only briefly, in connection with Aguayo et al, but not other people who have done far more with this technology than their group. Also, high doses of glucocorticoids (10 times inflammatory levels) were tested in rodent models of spinal cord injury by members of the neurosurgical unit in Saskatoon and were shown to have a beneficial post-traumatic effect histologically and behaviorally. Furthermore, electrostimulation of emergency acupuncture first aid points (Gv4, UB 62, 60, UB 39/40) was shown to preserve spinal cord tissue and function in rodent models, this work having been done at the University of Saskatchewan and subsequently published in the Journal of Acupuncture and Electrotherapeutics. Most of the aforementioned work was done and published between 1979 and 1991. But unless I am mistaken, biological bodies have not changed since that time, and the information obtained is worth maintaining in the public eye. The investigators who did this work moved on to other things and while doing them were working with limited funds, which are the only reasons why follow-up articles were not done. Specific articles can be accessed by digging up articles by J.E. Miller, M.J. Politis, M. Khan, J. Beveridge, M.F. Zanakis, and B. Albala.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,022 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,023 | 0,036 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,014 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».