Evaluating the effect of intraoperative peritoneal lavage on bacterial culture in dogs with suspected septic peritonitis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This pilot study describes the effect of intraoperative peritoneal lavage (IOPL) on bacterial counts and outcome in clinical cases of septic peritonitis. Intraoperative samples were cultured before and after IOPL. Thirty-three dogs with presumed septic peritonitis on the basis of cytology were managed surgically during the study period. Positive pre-lavage bacterial cultures were found in 14 cases, 13 of which were a result of intestinal leakage. The post-lavage cultures showed fewer isolates in 9 cases and in 1 case became negative. The number of dogs with a decrease in the concentration of bacteria cultured from pre-lavage to post-lavage samples was not statistically significant. There was no significant effect of the change in pre- to post-lavage culture, single versus multiple types of bacteria, selection of an appropriate empiric antimicrobial on survival or the need for subsequent surgery. This pilot study describes the effect of intraoperative peritoneal lavage (IOPL) on bacterial counts and outcome in clinical cases of septic peritonitis. Intraoperative samples were cultured before and after IOPL. Thirty-three dogs with presumed septic peritonitis on the basis of cytology were managed surgically during the study period. Positive pre-lavage bacterial cultures were found in 14 cases, 13 of which were a result of intestinal leakage. The post-lavage cultures showed fewer isolates in 9 cases and in 1 case became negative. The number of dogs with a decrease in the concentration of bacteria cultured from pre-lavage to post-lavage samples was not statistically significant. There was no significant effect of the change in pre- to post-lavage culture, single versus multiple types of bacteria, selection of an appropriate empiric antimicrobial on survival or the need for subsequent surgery.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".