Treatment for pancreatic abscesses via omentalization with abdominal closure versus open peritoneal drainage in dogs: 15 cases (1994–2004)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare survival rate, duration of hospitalization, and complications in dogs with pancreatic abscesses treated with omentalization with abdominal closure versus open peritoneal drainage and evaluate a pancreatitis severity score for potential prognostic value. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. ANIMALS: 15 dogs with pancreatic abscesses. PROCEDURE: Data regarding species, breed, age, initial clinical signs, CBC, serum biochemical abnormalities, pancreatitis severity score, anatomic location of the abscess, intraoperative bacteriologic culture results, treatment modality, postoperative complications, outcome (dismissed alive from the hospital, died in the postoperative period, or euthanized at surgery), and duration of hospitalization were evaluated. RESULTS: 6 dogs survived, 6 dogs died or were euthanized after surgery, and 3 were euthanized during surgery. Five of 8 dogs treated with omentalization and abdominal closure survived, and 1 of 4 dogs treated with open peritoneal drainage survived. In several dogs, treatment required additional surgical procedures, which did not appear to affect outcome. Postoperative complications were similar among survivors and nonsurvivors. Mean duration of hospitalization for dogs treated with omentalization and abdominal closure was less than that of dogs treated with open peritoneal drainage. Neither pancreatitis severity score nor any individual components of the score were associated with outcome. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Omentalization is a viable treatment option for pancreatic abscess in dogs. Furthermore, shorter hospitalization and better survival outcomes may make omentalization preferred over open peritoneal drainage.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".