Evaluation of peripheral blood and abdominal fluid variables as predictors of intestinal surgical site failure in dogs with septic peritonitis following celiotomy and the placement of closed-suction abdominal drains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate peripheral blood and abdominal fluid variables as predictors of intestinal surgical site failure in dogs with septic peritonitis following celiotomy and closed-suction abdominal drain (CSAD) placement. DESIGN Prospective study. ANIMALS 26 dogs with septic peritonitis that underwent celiotomy and CSAD placement. PROCEDURES Abdominal fluid and blood samples were collected prior to surgery and daily thereafter until CSAD removal. Abdominal fluid was collected through the CSAD. Analysis of all samples included pH, PCO2, PO2, PCV, WBC count, and total solids, glucose, lactate, and electrolyte concentrations. Abdominal fluid samples also underwent cytologic evaluation and bacterial culture, and the volume of fluid removed through the drain was recorded daily. The blood-to-fluid glucose and lactate differences, fluid-to-blood lactate ratio and blood-to-fluid WBC and neutrophil ratios were determined daily. Dogs were categorized into 2 groups on the basis of whether they had an uneventful recovery (UR) or developed postoperative septic peritonitis (POSP). RESULTS 23 dogs had a UR and 3 developed POSP. On the third day after surgery, the abdominal fluid WBC count was significantly lower and the blood-to-fluid WBC and neutrophil ratios were significantly higher for dogs in the POSP group, compared with those for dogs in the UR group. None of the other blood and abdominal fluid variables assessed differed significantly between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Results failed to identify any objective predictive indicators for POSP in dogs with CSADs. Use of blood-to-fluid WBC and neutrophil ratios as predictive indicators for POSP requires further investigation.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".