Evaluation of survival rate and athletic ability after nonsurgical or surgical treatment of cleft palate in horses: 55 cases (1986–2008)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine survival rate and athletic ability after nonsurgical or surgical treatment of cleft palate in horses. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. ANIMALS: 55 horses with cleft palate. PROCEDURES: 13 of the 55 horses died or were euthanized without treatment and were not included in all analyses. Medical records were reviewed for signalment, history, method of diagnosis, soft or hard palate involvement, type of surgical procedure performed, postoperative complications, and survival to hospital discharge. Information on athletic ability was acquired from race records and follow-up conversations with owners, trainers, or referring veterinarians. RESULTS: The predominant reason for initial evaluation was milk or feed in the nostrils (60%). The diagnosis was confirmed by means of videoendoscopy of the upper portion of the airway in all cases. Most cases involved the soft palate only (92.7%). Twenty-six of the 55 (47.3%) horses underwent surgical repair, and 12 of these had dehiscence at the caudal edge of the soft palate. Among potential racehorses, 14 of 33 had surgery. Of these, 12 of 14 survived to discharge and 2 horses raced. Among potential racehorses, 10 of 33 were discharged without surgery and 2 of these raced. Among nonracehorses, 12 of 22 underwent surgery and 11 survived to discharge. All horses that were discharged and for which follow-up information was available survived to 2 years of age or older without ill thrift despite dehiscence at the caudal edge of the soft palate and continued mild nasal discharge. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Horses with cleft palate had a higher survival rate than previously reported.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".