MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089149744 · doi:10.5326/jaaha-ms-5829

Predisposing Factors for Colonic Torsion/Volvulus in Dogs: A Retrospective Study of Six Cases (1992–2010)

2013· article· en· W2089149744 on OpenAlexaff
Dominique D. Gagnon, Brigitte A. Brisson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Animal Hospital Association · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGastropexyVolvulusExploratory laparotomyLaparotomySurgeryRetrospective cohort studyTorsion (gastropod)General surgeryGastroenterologyStomach

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purposes of this retrospective study were to review cases of colonic torsion/volvulus between July 1992 and August 2010 and to determine if any predisposing factors exist for the development of this condition. Six dogs were diagnosed with colonic torsion/volvulus during the study period. Four dogs had a history of previous gastric dilation-volvulus (GDV) with prophylactic gastropexy. Three of six dogs diagnosed with colonic torsion/volvulus had large intestinal entrapment and strangulation around the gastropexy site at the time of surgery. The history, clinical signs, physical examination, and radiologic findings were not specific for colonic torsion/volvulus in any dog. Early exploratory laparotomy was indicated to confirm the diagnosis and perform surgical correction of the affected bowel segments. Three of five dogs that underwent surgery had a left abdominal wall colopexy performed. All five dogs that underwent surgery in this study survived postoperatively. One patient was euthanized without surgical intervention. Results suggest that colonic torsion/volvulus should be considered in any large-breed dog with nonspecific gastrointestinal clinical signs and a history of previous gastropexy. Early recognition and prompt treatment of this condition may result in a good outcome.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations27
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Animal Hospital AssociationSame topicGastrointestinal disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207