MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142399902 · doi:10.1647/2007-018.1

Comparison of Treatment Protocols for Removing Metallic Foreign Objects From the Ventriculus of Budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus)

2009· article· en· W2142399902 on OpenAlexaff
Corina Lupu, Stéphanie Robins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Avian Medicine and Surgery · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBird parasitology and diseases
Canadian institutionsEspace pour la vie
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMelopsittacusGritBudgerigarAlimentary tractAnatomyBiologyDigestive tractMedicineZoologyInternal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To compare the efficacy of treatment protocols recommended to aid passage of metallic foreign objects from the ventriculus of birds, a 1-mm metal sphere, made from solder wire, was placed into the crop of each of 44 budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus). After survey radiographs confirmed the spheres were lodged in the ventriculus, birds were divided into 6 groups. Each group received 1 of 6 different treatment protocols: psyllium with grit, acidic drinking water, fine grit, coarse grit, cathartic emollients (peanut butter and mineral oil), and a control group. All birds were treated simultaneously with a chelating agent, dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA), to prevent heavy-metal toxicosis. Successive survey radiographs were used to monitor elimination of the spheres from the digestive tract. Of all protocols tested, birds treated with either fine or large grit had the shortest mean elimination time of the metal spheres. These results indicate that administration of grit particles, either fine or coarse, appears to be effective in hastening the passage of metallic foreign objects from the ventriculus of budgerigars.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations15
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Avian Medicine and SurgerySame topicBird parasitology and diseasesFrench-language works237,207