Comparison of intraosseous and intravenous infusion of technetium Tc 99m pertechnate in the distal portion of forelimbs in standing horses by use of scintigraphic imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the distribution of technetium Tc 99m (99mTc) pertechnate following intraosseous or i.v. injection (with or without use of a tourniquet) in the distal portion of the forelimb in standing horses. ANIMALS: 4 horses. PROCEDURE: Each horse received 4 forelimb treatments in random sequence: intraosseous infusion with tourniquet application (IOT), intraosseous infusion without tourniquet application, i.v infusion with tourniquet application (IVT), and i.v. infusion without tourniquet application. Dynamic nuclear scintigraphic imaging of the third metacarpal bone, proximal and middle phalanges, and distal phalanx was performed from the start of each treatment until 1 hour after infusion was completed. Radionuclide activity was compared within and between treatment groups. RESULTS: Tourniquet application was necessary to maintain high levels of radionuclide activity in the distal portion of the forelimb after intraosseous or i.v. infusion with 99mTc pertechnate; IVT and IOT treatments resulted in similar radionuclide activity in the proximal and middle phalanges and distal phalanx. Of the 4 treatments, there was significantly higher radionuclide activity in the distal aspect of the third metacarpal bone after the IOT treatment. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: By use of a tourniquet, radionuclide administration via the intraosseous or i.v. routes resulted in effective perfusion of the distal portion of the forelimb and similar distribution of the agent in the phalanges of horses. Further studies are required to ascertain whether these findings apply to delivery of therapeutic agents in infected tissues via IOT or IVT.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".