MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118971517 · doi:10.2460/javma.2004.224.1808

Recurrence of thoracolumbar intervertebral disk extrusion in chondrodystrophic dogs after surgical decompression with or without prophylactic enestration: 265 cases (1995–1999)

2004· article· en· W2118971517 on OpenAlexaff
Brigitte A. Brisson, Shannon L. Moffatt, Seanna L. Swayne, Joane Parent

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Veterinary Medical Association · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Orthopedics and Neurology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFenestrationSurgeryDecompressionIntervertebral diskLumbar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a population of chondrodystrophic dogs treated for Hansen type 1 intervertebral disk (IVD) disease by surgical decompression with or without prophylactic fenestration and determine the rate and location of surgically confirmed recurrence of intervertebral disk extrusion. ANIMALS: 265 dogs. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. PROCEDURES: Medical records of dogs that underwent spinal decompression between 1995 and 1999 were reviewed. RESULTS: 3 (4.9%) dogs were euthanatized or died prior to discharge. Fenestration was performed in 252 dogs, including 37 (14.7%) at the site of decompression only, 48 (19%) at 3 to 4 disk spaces, and 167 (66%) at 5 to 7 disk spaces. There were 12 instances of recurrent disk extrusion confirmed by removal of disk at a second surgery 3.5 to 33 months after the first surgery. Recurrence was always at a new disk space, and rates did not significantly differ between dogs that underwent single or multiple fenestrations. Two recurrences were at a previously fenestrated disk space. Seven recurrences were at a site immediately adjacent to a fenestrated disk space, and 5 recurrences were at L4-5. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Prophylactic fenestration is generally successful in preventing future disk extrusions at fenestrated disk spaces. Prospective evaluation is still required to determine whether fenestration decreases the overall rate of recurrence. Prophylactic fenestration could promote disk extrusion at adjacent, nonfenestrated disk spaces. This could have a substantial clinical impact if recurrence develops at L4-5.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations122
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Veterinary Medical AssociationSame topicVeterinary Orthopedics and NeurologyFrench-language works237,207