Sub-Bandage Pressure in the Canine Forelimb after Rigid Splint Application by Surgeons and Veterinary Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The aim of this study was to measure and compare sub-bandage pressures after a rigid splint was applied to the forelimb of a dog by surgeons and veterinary students. Animals One, adult, Labrador Retriever. Methods Sub-bandage pressure was measured at five locations on the limb of a dog using a previously validated pneumatic compression measurement system over a 4-hour period after splint application. All participants received the same instructions and the same dog was used for each splint application. Results Across time and location, mean sub-bandage pressures from the experienced group were significantly greater than those from the inexperienced group at all transducer locations and at all time points. People from the inexperienced group recorded the greatest range in sub-bandage pressures and had significantly higher-pressure differences across the five locations sub-bandage pressure was measured. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance Surgeons applied their splint bandages with approximately 50% greater pressure and 50% less variability between locations. The large range in sub-bandage pressures found may suggest that decreased and/or increased sub-bandage pressure may predispose to bandage complications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".