MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765537868 · doi:10.1136/vr.104353

Food engorgement in 35 dogs (2009–2013) compared with 36 dogs with gastric dilation and volvulus

2017· article· en· W2765537868 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lisa Smart, Shona L. Reese, Giselle Hosgood

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary Record · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAbdominal distensionGastric volvulusVolvulusStomachLabrador RetrieverDistensionSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The clinical features and management of food engorgement (FE) in dogs have not been previously described. This retrospective observational study describes characteristics and outcome of 35 dogs with FE, and compares features on presentation to 36 dogs with gastric dilation and volvulus (GDV). Cases were retrospectively reviewed for history, clinical findings and outcome. Gastric distension was measured by caudal gastric margin (CGM), level with lumbar vertebrae, on a lateral abdominal radiograph. Frequent characteristics of dogs with FE included tachycardia, tachypnoea, hyperproteinaemia, increased base excess (BE), mild hypernatraemia and hyperlactataemia. There was overlap in CGM between dogs with GDV (CGM range L3 to >L6) and dogs with FE (CGM range <L2 to L5-L6). In contrast to dogs with GDV, lactate concentration in dogs with FE was not associated with CGM or BE. Dogs with FE mostly received medical intervention consisting of fluid therapy and analgesia, and all dogs survived to discharge. In conclusion, dogs with FE frequently presented with acid-base and electrolyte derangements, including hyperlactataemia. While dogs with FE can have gastric distension as severe as that seen with GDV, outcome with supportive care only is excellent.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.591

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVeterinary RecordSame topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207