MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2529415353 · doi:10.1111/vsu.12568

Long‐Term Outcome and Complications Following Prophylactic Laparoscopic‐Assisted Gastropexy in Dogs

2016· article· en· W2529415353 on OpenAlex
Natasha K. Loy Son, Ameet Singh, Pierre Amsellem, Jessica Kilkenny, Brigitte A. Brisson, Michelle L. Oblak, Adam T. Ogilvie

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary Surgery · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Medicine and Surgery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward IslandUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGastropexySurgeryComplicationMedical recordLimitingRetrospective cohort studyPatient satisfactionAnesthesiaStomachInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the short- and long-term outcome (>12 months), complications, and owner satisfaction following prophylactic laparoscopic-assisted gastropexy (LAG) in dogs. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. ANIMALS: Client-owned dogs (n = 49). METHODS: Dogs that underwent prophylactic LAG at 2 veterinary academic hospitals were studied. Surgical time, anesthesia time, concurrent intra- and extra-abdominal procedures, and intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded following review of medical records. Veterinarian and/or owner follow-up was obtained to determine outcome and satisfaction with LAG. RESULTS: Five of 49 dogs (10%) experienced complications related to abdominal access during LAG. Four percent (2/49) of dogs experienced an intraoperative complication. Follow-up information was available for 89% of dogs (44/49). Four dogs died of causes unrelated to LAG or gastric dilatation volvulus (GDV) in the follow-up period. Two dogs experienced major postoperative complications requiring additional veterinary intervention. Thirty percent (13 dogs) experienced a minor postoperative self-limiting wound-related complication. Median follow-up time was 698 days (range, 411-1825). No dogs experienced GDV. One hundred percent of dog owners were satisfied with LAG, would repeat the procedure in a future pet, and would recommend the procedure to a friend or family member. CONCLUSION: LAG was an effective procedure for prevention of GDV and was associated with high client satisfaction in this cohort of dogs. A moderate rate of postoperative wound complications occurred that were minor and self-limiting in nature.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.158
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it