MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2773220274 · doi:10.1111/jsap.12794

Endoscopic and surgical removal of oesophageal and gastric fishhook foreign bodies in 33 animals

2017· article· en· W2773220274 on OpenAlexaff
Marie Binvel, L. Poujol, C. Peyron, Antoine Dunié‐Mérigot, Fanny Bernardin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Small Animal Practice · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicForeign Body Medical Cases
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCATSPerforationSurgeryComplicationMedical recordRetrospective cohort studyIngestionClinical significanceForeign bodyStomachEndoscopyForeign BodiesInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To describe the location, retrieval, frequency of surgery and complications associated with fishhook foreign bodies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective evaluation of the medical records of cats and dogs admitted between 2010 and 2016 after fishhook ingestion. RESULTS: A total of 33 cases (2 cats and 31 dogs) were included. The most common locations were the proximal oesophagus [12/33 (36%)] and stomach [11/33 (33%)]. Endoscopic retrieval was successful in 27 of 33 cases (82%); oesophageal perforation was the only recorded complication, occurring in six of 33 (18%) cases. Surgery was performed in six cases (18%), and no early complications were recorded. The survival rate was 100%. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The endoscopic removal of ingested fishhooks is highly successful. In the present study, survival to discharge was 100%, even in cases of oesophageal perforation or in cases requiring surgery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations27
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Small Animal PracticeSame topicForeign Body Medical CasesFrench-language works237,207