Frequency of Undetected Glove Perforation and Associated Risk Factors in Equine Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the frequency of undetected perforations in surgical gloves during equine surgery and to identify risk factors associated with occurrence. STUDY DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Surgical gloves-292 pairs. METHODS: Water leak tests were performed on gloves after equine surgery to detect perforations. Fifty pairs of unused gloves were also tested. Potential risk factors were recorded. Logistic regression was used to explore associations between putative risk factors and perforation. RESULTS: No perforations were detected in the unused gloves. Of 292 pairs of used gloves tested, 80 (27%) had at least one glove perforation per pair. The frequency of perforations was not different between surgery diplomates and residents (P=.69). The length and type of surgery were significantly associated with the likelihood of undetected glove perforation with surgeries longer than 60 minutes approximately 2.5 times more likely to result in glove perforation (P=.005). Surgery classified as soft tissue, orthopedic or exploratory celiotomy was 3 times more likely to result in glove perforation than minimally invasive surgery. The perforations occurred significantly more frequently in the nondominant hand (19%) than the dominant hand (11%) (P=.009). CONCLUSION: There is a high occurrence of undetected glove perforation in equine surgery. Precautions can be suggested based on this study although further investigation is required to assess whether glove perforations are associated with surgical site infections.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".