<i>Ex Vivo</i> Comparison of 7 Polydioxanone, 2 Polyglactin 910 for Closure of Ventral Median Celiotomy in Horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare bursting strength and failure mode between ventral median celiotomies closed with USP 7 braided polydioxanone (7PD) or USP 2 polyglactin 910 (2PG). STUDY DESIGN: Ex vivo experimental. ANIMALS: Equine cadavers (n = 10). METHODS: A 25 cm ventral median celiotomy was created in fresh equine cadavers. A 200 L polyurethane bladder was inserted into the abdomen. Celiotomies were closed in a simple continuous pattern with 2 sections of 7PD or 2PG. The bladder was inflated with compressed air until construct failure. The horses' signalment, body weight, suture type, failure mode (suture or abdominal wall), and bursting strength (mmHg) were recorded. Interactions between independent and dependent variables were assessed with statistical tests including linear regression. RESULTS: Failure mode was significantly different by suture type (P = .01). Four of 5 celiotomies closed with 2PG failed at the suture; whereas, 0 celiotomies closed with 7PD failed at the suture. In celiotomies closed with 7PD, increasing age was highly and negatively correlated with bursting strength (r = -0.99). When the effect of age was controlled, 7PD had a significantly higher bursting strength than 2PG (P = .024). CONCLUSION: 7PD has a higher bursting strength compared with 2PG. Suture failure was the main failure mode for 2PG; whereas, all celiotomies closed with 7PD failed at the abdominal wall.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".