Evaluation of laparoscopic adhesiolysis for the treatment of experimentally induced adhesions in pony foals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of laparoscopic adhesiolysis in the treatment of experimentally induced adhesions in foals. ANIMALS: 8 healthy pony foals. PROCEDURE: Celiotomy was performed and adhesions created at the jejunoileal junction and at sites 0.5 and 1 m proximal to this junction, using a serosal abrasion method. Ten days after celiotomy, exploratory laparoscopy was performed. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis was performed in the treatment group only (4 foals, randomly selected). Thirty days after the exploratory laparoscopy, a final laparoscopic examination was performed, and the foals were euthanatized. The number and characteristics of abdominal adhesions were recorded during laparoscopy 10 and 30 days after celiotomy and during necropsy. RESULTS: At 30 days after celiotomy, the number of adhesions in the control group was significantly higher than the number in the treatment group. In the control group, all adhesions observed during the exploratory laparoscopy were still evident at the final laparoscopy and necropsy. In the treatment group, adhesions did not form again after separation. During final laparoscopy and necropsy, a focal adhesion between the omentum and site of the initial laparoscope portal was observed in 5 of 8 foals. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The serosal abrasion model is useful for studying abdominal adhesions in foals. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis was an effective technique to break down experimentally induced adhesions in the early maturation stage of formation in pony foals. Studies are required to investigate prevention of de novo adhesions at the laparoscope portal sites.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".