Endoscopic, Biopsy, and Histopathologic Guidelines for the Evaluation of Gastrointestinal Inflammation in Companion Animals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generation of the Guidelines D iagnosis and treatment of companion animal gas- trointestinal tract disorders have long been complicated by the absence of clinical, diagnostic, histopathologic, and therapeutic standards.Accordingly, the World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA) International Gastrointestinal (GI) Standardization Group was convened in 2004 for the purpose of developing standards for history taking, physical examination, laboratory diagnostic tests, imaging procedures and reports, endoscopic procedures and reports, biopsy procedures and reports, histopathologic interpretation, immunohistochemistry (IHC), treatment trials, and patient response and outcome in dogs and cats with gastrointestinal disease.The Standardization Group first met at the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine (ACVIM) Forum in Minneapolis in 2004, and several abstracts of its work were presented at national and international meetings (WSAVA Congress, European College of Veterinary Internal Medicine [ECVIM] Congress, and ACVIM Forum).A final summary of Phase I studies was presented at the WSAVA Congress in Dublin in 2008.During Phase I (2004-2008), the GI Standardization Group published proposed standards for endoscopy, 1 biopsy, 2 and histopathological evaluation of inflammation 3 in endoscopic biopsies of the gastrointestinal tract of dogs and cats.In 2008, the GI Standardization Group was invited to develop an ACVIM Consensus Statement on ''Endoscopic, Biopsy, and Histopathologic Guidelines for the Evaluation of Gastrointestinal Inflammation in Companion Animals'' for presentation at the 26th Annual ACVIM Forum in San Antonio, TX.After presentation at the ACVIM Forum, a written draft of the Consensus Statement was prepared by the Group and posted to the Consensus Statements of the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine (ACVIM) provide the veterinary community with up-to-date information on the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically important animal diseases.The ACVIM Board of Regents oversees selection of relevant topics, identification of panel members with the expertise to draft the statements, and other aspects of assuring the integrity of the process.The statements are derived from evidence-based medicine whenever possible and the panel offers interpretive comments when such evidence is inadequate or contradictory.A draft is prepared by the panel, followed by solicitation of input by the ACVIM membership, which may be incorporated into the statement.
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 | 0.026 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
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".