Effect of Arthroscopic Lavage on Systemic and Synovial Fluid Serum Amyloid A in Healthy Horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of arthroscopic lavage on systemic serum amyloid A (SAA) and SAA, total protein, nucleated cell count, and percentage of neutrophils in synovial fluid in healthy horses. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective experimental study. ANIMALS: Healthy adult horses (n = 6). METHODS: Middle carpal joints were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatments: arthrocentesis (controls) or arthroscopic lavage, with 30 day washout period between treatments. Synovial fluid and blood samples were collected at 0, 24, 48, 72, 96, and 120 hours. Measurements included systemic and synovial fluid SAA, as well as total protein, nucleated cell count, and percentages of neutrophils in synovial fluid. Data were analyzed by median quantile regression and Wilcoxon signed-rank test and significance level set at P < .05. RESULTS: Systemic and synovial fluid SAA did not increase from baseline (except systemic SAA at 24 hours for both treatments) and were not significantly different between treatments. Total protein values were significantly increased after arthroscopic lavage (except at 96 hours) but not in controls at all time points. With both treatments, nucleated cell counts significantly increased from baseline values at all time points. Percentages of neutrophils were significantly increased after arthroscopic lavage at all time points, but only at 24 hours in controls. CONCLUSION: Total protein, nucleated cell count, and percentage of neutrophils in synovial fluid were significantly increased after arthroscopic lavage; however, synovial fluid SAA was not affected by this procedure. Further research is warranted to validate synovial fluid SAA as a monitoring tool during treatment of septic arthritis.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".