Tracheal aspiration of clinically healthy quarter horses after three barrel competition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to evaluate through endoscopy the tracheal aspiration cytology in twenty seven Quarter Horses from Curitiba and surroundings, following the Three Barrel Competittion. Upper respiratory tract secretion was obtained by tracheal aspiration using a polyethylene catheter introduced through the endoscopic fiberoptic working channel, at the level of tracheal bifurcation. Cytologic slides were prepared by smear and stained by diff-quick technique and the differential was performed in 500 cells counting by 1,000X optic microscopy. None of the horses presented abnormality, including epixtasis, at the clinical examination. However, hemosiderophages were detected at cytology in three animals, suggesting that some may be suffering of subclinical pulmonary hemorrhage. Differential cell counting of tracheal aspiration results were, in average: 44.09 ± 35.68% of epithelial cells; 1.10 ± 2.18% of Globet cells; 23.10 ± 35.93% of neutrophils; 0.13 ± 0.37% of lymphocytes; 0.91 ± 2.81% of eosinophils; 30.57 ± 23.62% of macrophages and 0.13 + 0.93% of hemosiderophages. In conclusion, based in the present study, the evaluation of cellular populations with the tracheal aspiration may offer important additional information to the clinician, particularly about the inflammatory processes of lower respiratory tract and pulmonary bleeding.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".