Evaluation of the effects of nephrotomy on renal function in clinically normal cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of nephrotomy on renal function in clinically normal cats. ANIMALS: 20 specific-pathogen-free, 9- to 11-month-old female mixed-breed cats. PROCEDURE: Serum chemistry analyses, CBC determinations, urinalyses, microbiologic urine cultures, renal ultrasonography, abdominal radiography, and single-kidney and total glomerular filtration rate (GFR) determinations by use of renal scintigraphy and measurements of plasma disappearance of technetium 99m-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid were performed before surgery and at 3, 12, 26, 52, and 78 weeks after surgery in 10 cats that underwent unilateral nephrotomy and in 10 control cats that underwent a sham surgical procedure. RESULTS: Two cats (1 from each group) did not complete the study, and their data were eliminated from analyses. Unilateral nephrotomy resulted in a 10% to 20% reduction in mean single-kidney GFR, compared with that of nephrotomy contralateral control kidneys. However, mean total GFR in nephrotomy-group cats was not significantly different from that of sham-group cats. Over the 78 weeks of study, mean total GFR declined 34% and 40% in nephrotomy- and sham-group cats, respectively. Adverse events associated with nephrotomy included persistent microscopic hematuria, renal pelvis hyperechogenicity with distant shadowing on ultrasonographic evaluation, dilatation of renal pelves, and hydronephrosis. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Nephrotomy in normal functioning feline kidneys results in a modest relative reduction in renal function, compared with contralateral kidney controls, but has minimal effect on total GFR when compared with sham-operated control cats. However, any detrimental effects of nephrotomy may be magnified in cats with diseased kidneys, which may have little or no capacity for repair or compensation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".