Evaluation of pet owner preferences for operative sterilization techniques in female dogs within the veterinary community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe pet owner preferences within the veterinary community when choosing operative techniques for canine spay. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective survey. SAMPLE POPULATION: 1234 respondents from 5 veterinary university teaching hospitals in North America. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to faculty, students, and staff that currently are or previously were dog owners. Responses were analyzed to determine what spay technique respondents would choose for their own dogs. Surgical options offered included open celiotomy, 2-port (TP) laparoscopy, single-port (SP) laparoscopy, and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). RESULTS: TP laparoscopic ovariectomy (OVE) was the most popular choice, followed by SP laparoscopic OVE; NOTES was the least popular technique when all surgical options were available. If only minimally invasive surgeries were offered, 0.3% of respondents would refuse surgery. Nearly half (48%) of respondents were willing to spend between $100 and $200 more for a minimally invasive OVE than for an open celiotomy. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive OVE is an acceptable operative approach to those in the veterinary community. Additional study is required to correlate these findings with the general veterinary client population.
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 | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".