Comparison of the effect of single-site and multiple-site disk fenestration on the rate of recurrence of thoracolumbar intervertebral disk herniation in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To prospectively assess whether multiple-site disk fenestration decreases the incidence of recurrent thoracolumbar intervertebral disk herniation (IVDH), compared with single-site disk fenestration, in small-breed dogs treated for IVDH. DESIGN: Randomized controlled clinical trial. ANIMALS: 207 client-owned dogs. PROCEDURES: Dogs undergoing decompressive surgery of the spinal cord because of thoracolumbar IVDH between 2001 and 2004 were randomly assigned to receive single-site disk fenestration at the level of surgical decompression (n = 103) or multiple-site disk fenestration of all disks from T11 through L4 (104). Follow-up consisted of complete reevaluation of patients, telephone surveys, and further surgery if signs indicative of recurrence occurred. RESULTS: 189 dogs were available for long-term follow-up: 95 dogs in the single-site disk fenestration group and 94 in the multiple-site disk fenestration group. Twenty-four dogs developed 28 confirmed episodes of recurrent thoracolumbar IVDH. The rate for first-time recurrence was 12.7% (24/189). First-time recurrence rates for single-and multiple-site disk fenestration groups were 17.89% (17/95) and 7.45% (7/94), respectively. Dogs undergoing single-site disk fenestration were significantly more likely to have recurrent thoracolumbar IVDH than were dogs undergoing multiple-site disk fenestration. Disk mineralization at the time of first surgery was associated with recurrence, and 87.5% (21/24) of recurrences occurred at a disk space adjacent to or 1 disk away from the initial lesion. Regardless of disk fenestration group, 22 of 24 (91.7%) recurrences occurred at a nonfenestrated disk space. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Multiple-site disk fenestration decreased the rate of recurrent IVDH in small-breed dogs, compared with the use of single-site disk fenestration.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".