Use of Atropine to Reduce Mucosal Eversion During Intestinal Resection and Anastomosis in the Dog
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether atropine altered the degree of mucosal eversion during jejunal resection and anastomosis in the dog. STUDY DESIGN: Part I: Prospective, blinded, randomized, controlled study using a therapeutic dose (0.04 mg/kg systemic) of atropine. Part II: Prospective, unblinded, assigned, controlled study using a pharmacologic (0.04 mg/kg local arterial) dose of atropine. ANIMALS: Part I: Twenty-two young adult female Beagle dogs used during a nonsurvival third-year veterinary student surgical laboratory (small intestinal resection and anastomosis). Part II: Ten young adult female Beagle dogs used immediately after completion of a nonsurvival third-year veterinary student orthopedic surgical laboratory. METHODS: Part I: Dogs were randomly assigned to receive either atropine (0.04 mg/kg), or an equal volume of saline, given intramuscularly (premedication) and again intravenously prior to intestinal resection. Part II: In each dog, atropine (0.04 mg/kg)/saline was alternately given in the proximal/distal jejunum. RESULTS: Part I: There was no clinically or statistically significant difference between systemic atropine and saline solution on the degree of jejunal mucosal eversion after resection. Part II: There was a statistically significant decrease in jejunal mucosal eversion with atropine compared with saline solution when injected into a local jejunal artery. CONCLUSION: Systemic atropine (0.04 mg/kg) does not alter the degree of jejunal mucosal eversion during resection and anastomosis. Jejunal intraarterial atropine (0.04 mg/kg) reduced jejunal mucosal eversion during resection and anastomosis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The clinical usefulness and consequences of jejunal arterial atropine administration to reduce mucosal eversion remain to be determined.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".