Serial abdominal radiographs do not significantly increase accuracy of diagnosis of gastrointestinal mechanical obstruction due to occult foreign bodies in dogs and cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abdominal radiographs are commonly used in dogs and cats that present with gastrointestinal signs. When initial abdominal radiographs are equivocal for the presence or absence of gastrointestinal mechanical obstruction, follow-up abdominal radiographs may be recommended. Based on our review of the literature, no published study has been performed to evaluate the clinical utility of serial abdominal radiographs in such cases. The purpose of this study is to determine whether follow-up abdominal radiographs increase diagnostic accuracy for mechanical obstruction. A prospective cohort study was performed on client-owned dogs and cats with clinical concern for gastrointestinal mechanical obstruction and initial abdominal radiographs inconclusive for the presence of obstruction. Follow-up abdominal radiographs were performed between 7 and 28 h of the initial radiographs; an abdominal ultrasound performed within 3 h of the follow-up study served as the gold standard. A total of 57 patients (40 dogs and 17 cats) were recruited; 19 of 57 cases (11 dogs; 8 cats) were mechanically obstructed, all with nonradiopaque foreign bodies. Four blinded reviewers (2 radiologists, 1 radiology resident, 1 criticalist) separately assessed the initial and the combined initial/follow-up radiographic studies for diagnosis of mechanical obstruction; for each observer, there was no significant change in accuracy (P = .058-.87) for the diagnosis of mechanical obstruction. Given the lack of significant increase in diagnostic accuracy using follow-up radiographs in cases of occult gastrointestinal mechanical obstruction, other diagnostic options (eg, abdominal ultrasonography) could be considered when survey abdominal radiographs are inconclusive for the diagnosis of mechanical obstruction in dogs and cats.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".