Examining the safety of colon anastomosis on a rat model of ischemia-reperfusion injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Intestinal ischemia and reperfusion can impair anastomotic strength. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety of delayed colon anastomosis following remote ischemia-reperfusion (IR) injury. METHODS: Rats divided into two groups underwent bilateral groin incisions, however only the study group had femoral artery clamping to inflict IR injury. Twenty-four hours following this insult, the animals underwent laparotomy, incision of the transverse colon and reanastomosis. End points included anastomotic leakage, strength and histopathological features. RESULTS: Anastomotic leak among IR animals (22.2%) was not statistically different in comparison to the controls [10.5% (p = 0.40)]. Anastomotic mean burst pressures showed no statistically significant difference [150.6 ± 15.57 mmHg in the control group vs. 159.9 ± 9.88 mmHg in the IR group (p = 0.64)]. The acute inflammatory process in the IR group was similar to controls (p = 0.26), as was the chronic repair process (p = 0.88). There was no significant difference between the inflammation:repair ratios amongst the two groups (p = 0.67). CONCLUSION: Primary colon repair is safe when performed 24 hours following systemic IR injury.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".