Focused assessment with sonography in nontraumatized dogs and cats in the emergency and critical care setting
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of abdominal- and thoracic-focused assessment with sonography for trauma (AFAST and TFAST) in nontraumatized dogs and cats in the emergency and critical care setting and to compare prevalence of free fluid identified via these techniques between stable and unstable patients. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: University Distributed Veterinary Learning Community. ANIMALS: One hundred client-owned dogs and cats presenting to an emergency service with no evidence of trauma. INTERVENTIONS: AFAST and TFAST performed within 12 hours of presentation. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Free fluid was identified on AFAST or TFAST in 33% of dogs and cats in this study. Free fluid was identified in 27 of 36 (75%) cardiovascularly unstable or dyspneic patients, compared to 6 of 64 (9%) stable patients. A significantly greater proportion of unstable patients had free fluid compared to stable patients (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study support the use of AFAST and TFAST to detect free fluid in nontraumatized dogs and cats in the emergency and critical care setting, particularly patients that are unstable on presentation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it