Prospective Evaluation of Laparoscopic Pancreatic Biopsies in 11 Healthy Cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Definitive diagnosis of feline pancreatic disease is dependent on histologic examination of biopsies. HYPOTHESIS: Laparoscopic punch biopsy of the pancreas does not significantly affect pancreatic health or clinical status of healthy cats, and provides an adequate biopsy sample for histopathology. ANIMALS: Eleven healthy female domestic shorthair cats. METHODS: Effects of laparoscopic pancreatic visualization alone in 5 cats compared with laparoscopic pancreatic visualization and punch biopsy in 6 cats were studied. Temperature, pulse, and respiratory rate, physical examination, and daily caloric intake were evaluated for 1 week before and 1 week after the procedure. Pain scores (simple descriptive score and dynamic interactive visual assessment score) were evaluated hourly during the 1st 6 hours postprocedure. Complete blood cell counts, serum biochemical profiles, serum feline pancreatic lipase immunoreactivity, and urine specific gravity were evaluated before the procedure and at 6, 24, and 72 hours postprocedure. One month postprocedure, during sterilization, the pancreas was reassessed visually in all cats, and microscopically in the biopsy group. RESULTS: For all variables evaluated, there were no significant differences between biopsy and control cats. Re-evaluation of the pancreatic biopsy site 1 month later documented a normal tissue response to biopsy. The laparoscopic punch biopsy forceps provided high-quality pancreatic biopsy samples with an average size of 5 mm x 4 mm on 2-dimensional cut section. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Laparoscopic pancreatic biopsy is a useful and safe technique in healthy cats.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".