Use of a vessel-sealing device versus conventional hemostatic techniques in dogs undergoing thyroidectomy because of suspected thyroid carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare use of a vessel-sealing device (VSD) versus conventional hemostatic techniques in dogs undergoing thyroidectomy because of suspected thyroid carcinoma. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. ANIMALS: 42 client-owned dogs undergoing thyroidectomy because of suspected thyroid carcinoma. PROCEDURES: Medical records of dogs treated at 4 referral centers from 2010 through 2016 were reviewed, and information was obtained on patient signalment, surgical technique, tumor-specific factors, and operative duration. Postoperative hospitalization time and complications were compared between dogs grouped on the basis of hemostatic technique. RESULTS: Thyroidectomy was performed with a VSD in 23 dogs and with conventional hemostatic techniques (ie, ligatures, hemoclips, or electrocautery) in 19 dogs. Hemostatic technique (ie, use of a VSD vs conventional hemostatic techniques) was the only factor significantly associated with operative duration (median time, 28 vs 41 minutes). Postoperative hospitalization times and complication rates did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggested that use of a VSD, rather than conventional hemostatic techniques, in dogs undergoing thyroidectomy because of suspected thyroid carcinoma resulted in shorter operative times without significantly affecting complication rates or postoperative hospitalization times.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".