MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902504346 · doi:10.1111/vsu.13129

Outcome in dogs with presumptive idiopathic pericardial effusion after thoracoscopic pericardectomy and pericardioscopy

2018· article· en· W2902504346 on OpenAlexaff
Jose L. Carvajal, J. Brad Case, Philipp D. Mayhew, Jeffrey J. Runge, Ameet Singh, Sarah Townsend, Eric Monnet

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary Surgery · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVeterinary Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePericardial effusionPericardiumMalignancyPericarditisPericardiectomyPericardiocentesisThoracoscopyClinical significanceEffusionSurgeryBiopsyRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To report the outcome of dogs with presumptive echocardiographic idiopathic pericardial effusion treated with thoracoscopic pericardectomy and pericardioscopy. STUDY DESIGN: Multi-institutional retrospective study (2011-2017). ANIMALS: Eighteen dogs. METHODS: Records were searched for dogs with pericardial effusion and no identified cause by preoperative echocardiography and subsequent thoracoscopic pericardectomy and pericardioscopy. Collected data included presenting complaint, physical examination, laboratory results, imaging, and operative findings. Follow-up was obtained via telephone interview and/or recheck examination. RESULTS: No evidence of mass lesions or cause for the effusion was identified in any of the dogs by preoperative echocardiography. Nine dogs had unremarkable pericardioscopic examination results. Nine dogs had pericardioscopic abnormalities consistent with masses, nodules, or adhesions. Median survival time (MST) for the 9 dogs with abnormalities identified by pericardioscopy was 66 days, whereas MST for the 9 dogs with unremarkable pericardioscopic examination results was not reached (P = .0067). Median survival time for dogs based on histopathologic diagnosis alone was not different between dogs with a diagnosis of neoplasia and dogs with a diagnosis of pericarditis (P = .1056). Among dogs with lesions identified during pericardioscopy, MST did not differ between those with a diagnosis of malignancy and those with a diagnosis of pericarditis (P = .78). CONCLUSION: Dogs with presumptive idiopathic pericardial effusion without evidence of masses, nodules, and/or adhesions during thoracoscopic pericardectomy and pericardioscopy lived longer than dogs in which abnormalities were identified during pericardioscopy. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Thoracoscopic pericardectomy/pericardioscopy and targeted biopsy of the pericardium and pleura are recommended in dogs with echocardiographic idiopathic pericardial effusion.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVeterinary SurgerySame topicVeterinary Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207