Placement of ureteral stents in three rabbits for the treatment of obstructive ureterolithiasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Management of ureteral obstruction with stenting is often associated with a lower rate of complications than ureterotomy in domestic carnivores, but this treatment has not been previously evaluated in rabbits. Three rabbits (7, 6 and 10 years old) were diagnosed with unilateral obstructive ureterolithiasis associated with hydronephrosis and hydroureter on abdominal ultrasound. Decreased overall renal function was confirmed in all three cases. Ureteral stents were placed retrogradely via cystotomy without complication in two cases and anterogradely via nephrostomy in the third case. Survival after stent placement was 30, 3 and 8 months, with encrustation of the stent and re-obstruction occurring 18, 1 and 6 months after stent placement in successive cases. Ureteral stenting can be considered for short-term management of ureterolithiasis in rabbits to improve renal function and maintain quality of life. Ultrasound or radiographic monitoring is recommended to detect encrustation of the stent. Studies comparing ureteral stenting to ureterotomy in rabbits are needed to determine the effectiveness of these techniques.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".