Comparison of hand-sewn and oversewn stapled jejunojejunal anastomoses in horses.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties of hand-sewn jejunojejunal anastomoses to those of oversewn stapled jejunojejunal anastomoses. Jejunojejunal anastomoses were constructed from harvested jejunal segments using a single-layer Lembert technique (1HS), double-layer simple continuous/Cushing technique (2HS), stapled side-to-side technique oversewn with Cushing pattern (SS), and closed 1-stage stapled functional end-to-end technique oversewn with Cushing pattern (FEE). Anastomosed segments were distended with fluid until the point of biomechanical failure. The 2HS had the longest construction time of all anastomoses. Bursting pressures were significantly higher for hand-sewn jejunojejunostomies than those for oversewn stapled jejunojejunostomies. No significant differences were found in bursting pressures between 1HS and 2HS or between SS and FEE. Hand-sewn jejunojejunostomies proved to be biomechanically stronger than oversewn stapled jejunojejunostomies when initially constructed. However, all anastomotic types would be secure techniques to be used clinically based on the supraphysiological pressures they are capable of withstanding.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".