MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901545504 · doi:10.1111/vsu.13131

Comparison of outcome in dogs undergoing single‐incision laparoscopic‐assisted intestinal surgery and open laparotomy for simple small intestinal foreign body removal

2018· article· en· W2901545504 on OpenAlex

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 · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMinimally Invasive Surgical Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLaparotomySurgeryForeign bodyForeign Body RemovalPerioperativeSingle CenterLaparoscopyMedical recordRetrospective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare outcome in dogs that underwent single-incision laparoscopic-assisted intestinal surgery (SILAIS) and open laparotomy (OL) for simple foreign body removal. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. ANIMALS: Twenty-eight client-owned dogs that underwent SILAIS (n = 13) or OL (n = 15). METHODS: Foreign body removal via SILAIS was performed with a commercially available single-port device. After laparoscopic evaluation, a wound retraction device (WRD) was inserted. The small intestine was extracorporeally explored, and foreign body removal was performed. The surgeon's hand was inserted through the WRD to palpate portions of the gastrointestinal tract not able to be extracorporeally evaluated. Open laparotomy with foreign body removal was performed via a ventral midline approach. Medical records were retrospectively reviewed, and perioperative data were collected. Follow-up data were collected with a standardized questionnaire with the referring veterinarian and/or owner via telephone interview. RESULTS: No postoperative complications were encountered in either the SILAIS or the OL group, and all dogs were successfully discharged from the hospital. Conversion from SILAIS to OL occurred in 3/13 cases. There was no significant difference in duration of hospitalization, duration of time to recovery, or surgical time between surgical approaches (SILAIS vs OL). CONCLUSION: Single-incision laparoscopic-assisted intestinal surgery for foreign body removal was not significantly different from OL in a variety of outcome measures in this cohort of dogs. Diagnostic imaging including ultrasonography or computed tomography may improve appropriate case selection for SILAIS for simple foreign body removal. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Single-incision laparoscopic-assisted intestinal surgery offers a minimally invasive technique for simple small intestinal foreign body removal. Additional study is required to compare SILAIS with OL.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.270
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.144 · 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