Laparoscopic Intestinal Exploration and Full‐Thickness Intestinal Biopsy in Standing Horses: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess a laparoscopic technique for equine intestinal biopsy. STUDY DESIGN: Experimental study. ANIMALS: Seven adult horses. METHODS: Food but not water was withheld for 36 hours before laparoscopy. In 3 horses (group A) standing, right laparoscopic access to different small intestinal segments was compared with ventral median celiotomy access. Inaccessible segments were identified at necropsy. In 4 horses (group B), the feasibility of obtaining full-thickness duodenal and cecal biopsies and any associated morbidity were evaluated. Biopsy specimens were collected during standing right laparoscopy using a 2-step procedure and intracorporeal suturing technique, and abdominal lavage was performed. Horses were monitored clinically and by abdominal fluid cytology and microbial culture, and repeat laparoscopy was performed on day 6. RESULTS: Standing right flank laparoscopy provided good observation of small intestinal segments and enabled manipulation of all but 15-20 cm of the duodenum and approximately 40 cm more ileum compared with ventral median celiotomy. Group B horses had no complications, no adhesions, and no bacterial growth from peritoneal fluid samples. None of the horses had signs of abdominal pain. CONCLUSION: A 2-stage intestinal biopsy technique performed during standing, right flank laparoscopy may be a safe alternative to exploratory celiotomy and biopsy in normal horses. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Right flank laparoscopy allows biopsy of intestinal segments including duodenum and 50% more of the ileum than is accessible by ventral median celiotomy. This technique should be evaluated in clinical patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".