Prevalence of circumcaval ureters and double caudal vena cava in cats
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of circumcaval ureters and other caudal vena cava variations in cats and determine whether circumcaval ureters were associated with macroscopic evidence of ureteral obstruction. SAMPLE: 301 domestic cat cadavers obtained from an animal shelter. PROCEDURES: All cat cadavers were examined, and anatomic variations of the ureters and caudal vena cava were recorded. In cadavers with a circumcaval ureter, kidney length, width, and height were measured, and the ureters were examined macroscopically to determine whether there was gross evidence of ureteral obstruction in cats with circumcaval ureters. RESULTS: At least 1 circumcaval ureter was present in 106 of the 301 (35.2%) cats, with a right circumcaval ureter identified in 92 (30.6%) cats, a left circumcaval ureter identified in 4 (1.3%), and bilateral circumcaval ureters identified in 10 (3.3%). Twenty-one (7.0%) cats had a double caudal vena cava, including 2 cats in which the double caudal vena cava was the only anatomic abnormality identified. No sex predilection for anatomic abnormalities was found. Mean right kidney length was significantly greater than mean left kidney length in cats with a right circumcaval ureter. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Circumcaval ureter was present in approximately a third of cats in this study. Variation in the development of the caudal vena cava is the proposed cause. The clinical relevance of this variation is unknown.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it