Clinical Findings and Prognostic Factors for Dogs Undergoing Cholecystectomy for Gall Bladder Mucocele
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report clinical findings and explore prognostic factors for dogs that had cholecystectomy for gall bladder mucocele. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case series. ANIMALS: Dogs (n = 43) with gall bladder mucoceles. RESULTS: Diagnosis of gall bladder mucoceles was confirmed by histopathology and 74% were diagnosed based on preoperative abdominal ultrasonography. Intraoperative evidence of gall bladder rupture was noted in 10 dogs (23%), and 16 (37%) had evidence of previous leakage in the abdominal cavity. One dog had positive bacterial growth from the gall bladder content. The most common histopathologic findings in liver biopsies obtained at surgery were cholangiohepatitis, biliary hyperplasia, or cholestasis. Univariate analysis showed evidence of postoperative hypotension (P = .05) to be significantly negatively associated with survival. Significant difference in mean postoperative serum lactate (P = .034) and postoperative packed cell volume (P = .063) between dogs that survived and died was also noted. CONCLUSIONS: Elevations in postoperative serum lactate concentrations and immediate postoperative hypotension in dogs undergoing cholecystectomy for gall bladder mucoceles are associated with poor clinical outcome.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".