MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1878376488 · doi:10.1111/evj.12520

Clinical features and management of equine post operative ileus ( <scp>POI</scp> ): <scp>S</scp> urvey of <scp>D</scp> iplomates of the <scp>A</scp> merican <scp>C</scp> olleges of <scp>V</scp> eterinary <scp>I</scp> nternal <scp>M</scp> edicine ( <scp>ACVIM</scp> ), <scp>V</scp> eterinary <scp>S</scp> urgeons ( <scp>ACVS</scp> ) and <scp>V</scp> eterinary <scp>E</scp> mergency and <scp>C</scp> ritical <scp>C</scp> are ( <scp>ACVECC</scp> )

2015· article· en· W1878376488 on OpenAlexaff
D. Lefebvre, N. P. H. Hudson, Y Elce, Anthony T. Blikslager, Thomas J. Divers, Ian Handel, W. H. Tremaine, R. S. Pirie

Bibliographic record

VenueEquine Veterinary Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Equine Medical Research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersUniversity of Edinburgh
KeywordsMedicineVeterinary medicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: A recent survey of European Colleges (European College of Equine Internal Medicine [ECEIM] and European College of Veterinary Surgeons [ECVS]) revealed the different strategies implemented by, and some of the challenges facing, European clinicians presented with cases of post operative ileus (POI). It was concluded that further comparative analysis of opinions, canvassed from additional colleges of equine veterinary specialism worldwide, would provide valuable additional insight into current POI knowledge on a more global scale. OBJECTIVES: To report and compare the current strategies favoured by American veterinary specialists when managing POI in horses that underwent emergency colic surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. METHODS: Electronic invitations were sent to 814 Large Animal specialists, including 3 colleges: the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine (ACVIM), American College of Veterinary Surgeons (ACVS) and the American College of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care (ACVECC). RESULTS: The response rate was 14% (115/814). The majority of respondents (68%) reported an estimated prevalence range of POI of 0-20%. The presence of reflux on nasogastric intubation was the main criterion used to define POI. A lesion involving the small intestine was considered the main risk factor for POI. Anti-inflammatory drugs, intravenous (i.v.) fluids and antimicrobial drugs were the primary strategies used when managing POI. Flunixin meglumine and i.v. lidocaine were the drugs most commonly used in the treatment of horses with POI. Supplementary management strategies targeted mainly the prevention of post operative adhesions, infection and inflammation. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of consensus on the clinical definition of POI. Prospective and objective clinical assessment of the effectiveness of the different strategies contained within this and the European survey is necessary in order to identify a standardised approach to the management of equine POI.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations40
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEquine Veterinary JournalSame topicVeterinary Equine Medical ResearchFrench-language works237,207