A study of 55 field cases of uterine torsion in dairy cattle.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two-hundred and seventy-three animals were enrolled in a case-case comparison of uterine torsions and other dystocias. The purpose of the study was to describe field cases of uterine torsion and their clinical management, compare them with other types of dystocia attended by field veterinarians, and evaluate the effect of season and housing on the incidence of torsions. Fifty-five cases of uterine torsions representing 20% of the dystocias were diagnosed. Most cases of uterine torsion were successfully corrected and followed by the vaginal delivery of a live calf. When compared with other types of dystocia, cows were at greater risk for uterine torsion than were heifers (OR = 5.2; P < 0.0001), while animals suffering from fetopelvic disproportion or carrying twins were at a lesser risk (OR = 0.05; P < 0.0001 and OR = 0.09; P = 0.007, respectively). Heifers had a lower risk when calving alone in a pen versus a tie-stall (OR = 0.2, P = 0.04). There was no significant effect of season on the risk of uterine torsion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".