Comparisons Between Staphylectomy and Tie‐Forward Procedures in Combination with a Sternothyroideus Myotenectomy for the Treatment of Intermittent Dorsal Displacement of the Soft Palate: An Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of horses with intermittent dorsal displacement of the soft palate (IDDSP) treated surgically with a control group and to determine whether there was a difference in postoperative performance between horses treated with a staphylectomy or a tie-forward procedure. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective observational study. ANIMALS: Swedish Warmblood trotting horses (Standardbreds) with endoscopically confirmed IDDSP (n=56) and control horses (n=48) with endoscopically normal upper airways tested using overground endoscopy identified from medical records. METHODS: Generalized estimating equations that accounted for repeated measurements were used to compare presurgery and postsurgery racing performance (speed, m/s) of IDDSP horses, and to compare their performance to control horses. Similarly, the effects of surgical procedure type on whether horses returned to racing, postsurgical speed, career race starts and earnings were evaluated. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in race speed between IDDSP and control horses at any time point. The percentage of horses racing postoperatively, the number of career races, and career earnings did not differ between staphylectomy treated and tie-forward treated horses, nor between IDDSP and control horses. CONCLUSION: In our study there was no difference in the postoperative outcomes between the two surgical techniques used to treat definitively diagnosed IDDSP. These results find no strong evidence to promote use of one technique over another in the treatment of this condition.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".