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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".