MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of Two Laparoscopic Suture Patterns for Repair of Experimentally Ruptured Urinary Bladders in Normal Neonatal Calves

2005· article· en· W2002671658 on OpenAlexaff
Ludovic Bouré, Carolyn L. Kerr, Simon G. Pearce, R J Runciman, Jennifer L. Lansdowne, Jeff Caswell

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary Surgery · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFibrous jointUrinary systemSurgeryAnalysis of varianceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 laparoscopic suture patterns for repair of experimentally ruptured urinary bladders in normal neonatal calves. STUDY DESIGN: Experimental surgical study. ANIMALS: Thirty male Holstein calves. METHODS: A bladder defect was created in 24 anesthetized calves (day 0). They were randomly divided into 4 groups (n=6/group). In groups 1 and 3, the defect was closed laparoscopically using a one layer full thickness simple continuous (FTSC) suture pattern (pattern A). In groups 2 and 4, the defect was closed laparoscopically in 2 layers using a FTSC suture pattern followed by Lembert continuous suture pattern (pattern B). Groups 1 and 2 calves were euthanatized at the end of the surgery and groups 3 and 4 at day 10. Six healthy calves were also euthanatized and used as a control group. The bladders were harvested and tested for bursting strength (BS). The surgical time (ST) data from the two groups for each pattern were pooled. A Student t-test was used to compare ST data. For the BS data, a 2-factor ANOVA test with post-hoc Student t-test was used to determine if treatment, time, or treatment-time interaction was significant. A Dunnett's test was used to compare BS of the 4 treatment groups to the control group. P<.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Mean ST was significantly shorter for pattern A than for pattern B. In all treatment groups, the mean bladder BS (MBBS) was significantly lower than the MBBS for the control group. The MBBS was significantly lower for group 1 than for group 2. There was no significant difference in the MBBS between groups 3 and 4. CONCLUSION: In this study, a 1-layer laparoscopic closure technique had advantages compared with 2-layer laparoscopic closure technique. Further work is required before a 1-layer laparoscopic closure technique can be recommended clinically. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: One-layer bladder closure is fast and safe in clinically normal calves and permits additional research to evaluate its safety in foals and clinical ruptures.

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)0.000
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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.688

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations25
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVeterinary SurgerySame topicTissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicineFrench-language works237,207