Comparison of 2-step laparoscopy-guided abomasopexy versus omentopexy via right flank laparotomy for the treatment of dairy cows with left displacement of the abomasum in on-farm settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare characteristics and results of 2-step laparoscopy-guided abomasopexy versus omentopexy via laparotomy in the right paralumbar fossa for the treatment of dairy cows with a left displaced abomasum (LDA). DESIGN: Prospective clinical trial. 253 dairy cows with an LDA. PROCEDURES: All cows that were treated with omentopexy (n = 101) or 2-step laparoscopy-guided abomasopexy (152) from July 2005 through December 2006 were included. Presurgical, perisurgical, and postsurgical information was recorded by attending veterinarians. Producers were interviewed by telephone 7 and 60 days after surgery regarding the response of cows to surgery. Characteristics of and responses to the 2 surgical techniques were compared. RESULTS: At 7 days after surgery, the 2 groups of cows were not significantly different with respect to appetite, comfort, and milk yield; at 60 days after surgery, groups were similar with respect to milk yield, cull rates, and risk of relapse of LDA. Antimicrobial treatment in response to postsurgical pyrexia was necessary in only 20.4% (31/152) of cows that were treated with 2-step laparoscopy-guided abomasopexy. Mean duration (preparation and surgery) of 2-step laparoscopy-guided abomasopexy was significantly less than that of omentopexy (36 vs 74 minutes, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results of 2-step laparoscopy-guided abomasopexy and omentopexy via laparotomy in the right paralumbar fossa were not significantly different. Compared with omentopexy, laparoscopy-guided abomasopexy was performed more quickly and required postsurgical administration of antimicrobials less frequently. Although these factors may be of economic consequence to veterinarians and producers, other aspects must also be considered when choosing between techniques.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".