MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1844381256 · doi:10.4141/cjas2013-171

Pilot laparoscopic ileal cannulation in pigs

2014· article· en· W1844381256 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
S.X. Zhang, H. B. Wang, Hui Zhang, Hanfei Liu, Ziqiao Zhou, J. T. Zhang, Li Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAbdominal Surgery and Complications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCannulaUmbilicus (mollusc)SurgeryFibrous jointAbdominal cavityLaparoscopyIleumAnatomyAbdomenAbdominal wallInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Zhang, S. X., Wang, H. B., Zhang, H., Liu, H. F., Zhou, Z. F., Zhang, J. T. and Gao, L. 2014. Pilot laparoscopic ileal cannulation in pigs. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 94: 371–377. Pilot laparoscopic ileal cannulation was performed in eight anesthetized pigs (40.5±1.9 kg) positioned in dorsal recumbency using three portals in the abdomen. The T-shaped ileal cannulation site was located 15 cm anterior to the ileocecal valve on the antimesenteric section of the ileum. A transabdominal suspension suture was placed approximately 3 cm caudal to the ileal cannulation site. A purse-string suture was placed first around the insertion site, and a stab incision was made in the middle of the purse-string suture. The T-shaped cannula was inserted into the ileal lumen through the stab incision, and the purse-string suture was tightened. The T-shaped ileal cannula was pulled out of the abdominal cavity through the exit wound located 3–5 cm lateral and 10–12 cm caudal to the right or left side of the umbilicus. The transabdominal suspension suture was then removed. The T-shaped cannula was secured to the skin with a finger-trap suture. Surgical time and complications were recorded. Repeat laparoscopy was performed 35 d later. No major intraoperative or postoperative complications were encountered. The ileal contents were collected easily. On repeat laparoscopy, firm adhesion between the ileum and the abdominal wall was observed in all pigs, and there was no evidence of digesta leakage or consequential peritonitis.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score0.714

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicAbdominal Surgery and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207