Characteristics and long-term outcomes of dogs with gastroesophageal intussusception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine long-term outcomes and factors associated with those outcomes in dogs with gastroesophageal intussusception (GEI). ANIMALS: 36 dogs with GEI evaluated at 16 veterinary hospitals from January 2000 through January 2018. PROCEDURES: Medical records of included dogs were reviewed to collect information regarding signalment, clinical signs, physical examination findings, blood work and diagnostic imaging results, surgical findings, and outcome. Factors were evaluated for associations with various outcomes. RESULTS: Median age of dogs with GEI was 13.2 months, and males (72% [26/36]) and German Shepherd Dogs (33% [12/36]) were most common. Vomiting (67% [24/36]) and regurgitation (33% [12/36]) were the most common clinical signs. Ten of 36 (28%) dogs were euthanized without treatment, and 26 (72%) underwent treatment (25 surgically and 1 endoscopically). Twenty-three of the 26 (88%) treated dogs survived to discharge; median survival time was 995 days. At last follow-up, 15 of the 23 (65%) surviving dogs remained alive and 8 (35%) had died for reasons related to persistent regurgitation (n = 6) or reasons unrelated to GEI (2). Of the 10 dogs for which owners were contacted, 7 had persistent regurgitation, the severity of which was reduced through managed feedings. Dogs with acute (≤ 7 days) clinical signs or a previous diagnosis of megaesophagus were more likely to have persistent regurgitation than were dogs without these factors. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Treatment should be considered for dogs with GEI given the high rate of survival to discharge and median survival time. Although persistent regurgitation was common after treatment, a satisfactory outcome was possible with medical management, including managed feedings and medications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".