Preoperative and Postoperative L-Lactatemia Assessment for the Prognosis of Right Abomasal Disorders in Dairy Cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preoperative L-lactatemia and heart rate have been suggested as prognostic indicators of outcome for cows with right dilatation of the abomasum or volvulus (RDA/AV). However, postoperative L-lactatemia has not been assessed as a potential prognostic tool. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prognostic value of postoperative L-lactatemia (LAC2 ), duration of treatment (Dt), relative L-lactatemia difference (compared with preoperative L-lactatemia [LAC1 ]) ([LAC2 - LAC1 ]/LAC2 ) and change in L-lactate over time ([LAC2 - LAC1 ]/Dt) as compared to preoperative findings (LAC1 and heart rate [HR]) as prognostic factors in dairy cows with RDA/AV. ANIMALS: A total of 41 dairy cows were included: 19 with AV and 22 with RDA; 11 cows had a negative outcome (NO) and 30 cows had a positive outcome (PO) based on telephone follow-up with owners 30 days after surgery. METHODS: Prospective cohort study. Analysis was performed using logistic regression and comparison of area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) using nonparametric tests. RESULTS: LAC1 > 1.4 mmol/L or LAC2 > 2.2 mmol/L had the same accuracy with sensitivity of 100% (95% CI, 75.1-100%) and specificity of 80% (95% CI, 61.4-92.3%) for predicting NO. The relative L-lactatemia difference ([LAC2 - LAC1 ]/LAC1 ) or lactate kinetics ([LAC2 - LAC1 ]/Dt) were not associated with prognosis. The AUC of the preoperative model (which included HR and lnLAC1 ) was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.83-1.0) and that of the postoperative model (including only lnLAC2 ) was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.88-1.0); these were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Postoperative L-lactatemia is helpful to predict outcome in cows with RDA/AV. The short-term change in blood L-lactate is not a useful prognostic indicator, at least during the period of time spent on the farm for surgery and treatment.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".