Long‐term clinical outcomes of dogs with single congenital extrahepatic portosystemic shunts attenuated with thin film banding or ameroid ring constrictors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare long-term clinical outcomes of dogs with single congenital extrahepatic portosystemic shunts (CEHPSS) treated with thin film banding (TFB) consisting of polyolefin fiber or ameroid ring constrictor (ARC) placement in dogs. DESIGN: Retrospective, two-center clinical study. ANIMALS: Client-owned dogs (n = 123) with single CEHPSS undergoing gradual attenuation via TFB (n = 85) or ARC (n = 38). METHODS: Medical records of dogs with CEHPSS were reviewed. Follow-up data were collected from the referring veterinarian and/or owner via standardized questionnaire. Data were analyzed to compare short-term mortality rate and long-term outcome (>6 months). RESULTS: Dogs in the TFB group were older than dogs in the ARC group (median age, 19 vs 12 months, respectively; P = .01). There was no difference in survival to discharge between dogs in the TFB (81/85 [95.3%]) and ARC (37/38 [97.4%]; P > .99) groups. Preoperative levetiracetam was more frequently administered to dogs treated with TFB (64/85 [75.3%]) than to dogs treated with ARC (15/38 [39.5%;] P = .0002). Postoperative seizures were reported in 10 (8.1%) dogs; their prevalence did not differ between dogs treated with TFB (9/85 [10.6%]) and dogs treated with ARC (1/38 [2.6%]; P = .17). Median follow-up time for dogs treated with TFB (58.0 months, range 8-130) and ARC (63.3 months, range 7-138; P = .24) did not differ. CONCLUSION: Gradual attenuation of a single CEHPSS with either TFB or ARC resulted in similar long-term clinical outcomes and low postoperative morbidity and mortality rates. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Thin film banding (polyolefin fiber) offers an alternative leading to clinical outcomes similar to ARC in dogs with single CEHPSS.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".