Perioperative complications and outcome after surgery for treatment of gastric carcinoma in dogs: A Veterinary Society of Surgical Oncology retrospective study of 40 cases (2004–2018)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical characteristics, perioperative complications, and outcomes in dogs surgically treated for gastric carcinoma. STUDY DESIGN: Multi-institutional retrospective case series. ANIMALS: Forty client-owned dogs with histologically confirmed gastric carcinoma. METHODS: Medical records were reviewed for preoperative diagnostics, surgery, histopathology, postoperative complications, adjuvant chemotherapy, disease progression, and survival. Variables were assessed for associations with outcome by using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. RESULTS: Surgical treatment included partial gastrectomy (28 dogs), Billroth I (9 dogs), subtotal gastrectomy (2 dogs), and submucosal resection (1 dog). Major postoperative complications occurred in 8 of 40 dogs, including septic peritonitis secondary to dehiscence in 4 dogs. The median progression free interval was 54 days, and the median survival time (MST) was 178 days (range, 1-1902). According to multivariable analysis results, experiencing an intraoperative complication was associated with an increased risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] 3.5, 95% CI 1.1-9.8, P = .005), and administration of adjuvant chemotherapy correlated with an improved survival (HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.9, P = .03). CONCLUSION: In this population of dogs, MST exceeded historically reported data, major postoperative complication rates were comparable to established literature, and administration of adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved survival. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Results from this study may be used to counsel owners more accurately regarding prognosis for dogs undergoing surgical excision for gastric carcinoma.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".