MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Successful medical treatment of 15 dogs with pyothorax

2006· article· en· W2029270009 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. S. Johnson, Mike W. Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Small Animal Practice · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVeterinary Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePleural effusionSurgerySedationPercutaneousAbscessMetronidazoleAntibioticsThorax (insect anatomy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To review the success of non-surgical management, which included antibiotics and a single thoracocentesis, in 15 dogs presenting with pyothorax. METHODS: Sixteen dogs were selected retrospectively from case files at the Veterinary Cardiorespiratory Centre. RESULTS: One dog was diagnosed with a mass suspected to be a pulmonary abscess on ultrasound examination and was referred for surgery. Fifteen dogs were treated medically. Springer spaniels were the most commonly presented breed (six cases) followed by Labrador retrievers (three cases). Under sedation or general anaesthesia, thoracocentesis was performed unilaterally and as much purulent effusion as possible was removed. Lavage of the thorax was not undertaken. In most dogs, antibiotic treatment was ampicillin at a mean dose of 33 mg/kg administered three times daily and 25 mg/kg metronidazole administered twice daily. Antibiotics were provided for a minimum of six weeks. All dogs recovered completely and did not show relapse on prolonged follow-up. This included one dog, which had very widespread pleural adhesions and minimal effusion. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: In dogs that do not have evidence of pulmonary masses or consolidations and no evidence of granular pleural effusion, medical therapy may be curative even in chronic cases of pyothorax with pleural adhesions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations50
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Small Animal PracticeSame topicVeterinary Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207