Comparative outcomes between ameroid ring constrictor and cellophane banding for treatment of single congenital extrahepatic portosystemic shunts in 49 dogs (1998‐2012)
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes and identify prognostic factors in dogs with single congenital extrahepatic portosystemic shunt (CEHPSS) gradually attenuated with an ameroid ring constrictor (ARC) or cellophane banding (CB). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, multi-institutional study. ANIMALS: Forty-nine dogs with CEHPSS (n = 23 for ARC; n = 26 for CB). METHODS: Medical records of dogs with CEHPSS treated by ARC or CB were reviewed for postoperative (<1 month), midterm (1-6 months), and long-term (> 6 months) outcomes. Data were evaluated to detect factors associated with postoperative complications, residual shunting, and long-term outcome. RESULTS: Postoperative complication rates did not differ between ARC (26.1%) and CB (23.1%, P = .89) and were negatively associated with body weight (P = .03). Overall, postoperative mortality was low (2.0%). Clinical long-term outcome was excellent in 45.0% and 39.1% and good in 55.0% and 60.9% of dogs after ARC and CB, respectively. Suspected residual shunting rate upon abdominal ultrasonography was greater after CB (31.6%) than after ARC (0%). CONCLUSION: ARC and CB were both effective for attenuation of CEHPSS, resulting in good to excellent outcomes with low morbidity and mortality. Residual shunting was suspected in a higher proportion of dogs treated with CB on the basis of abdominal ultrasonography results. However, further prospective randomized studies must be conducted with validated evaluation methods to verify this assumption.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it