Morphology of the cisterna chyli in nine dogs with idiopathic chylothorax and in six healthy dogs assessed by computed tomographic lymphangiography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the morphology of the lymphatics in the region of the cisterna chyli in healthy dogs and in dogs with idiopathic chylothorax by using computed tomographic lymphangiography. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. ANIMALS: Nine dogs with idiopathic chylothorax and six healthy dogs. METHODS: Computed tomographic lymphangiograms were reviewed to evaluate the number of cisterna chyli branches, total cross-sectional area of the branches normalized to the cross-sectional area of the aorta, number of branches with cross-sectional area greater than 25% of the aorta cross-sectional area, and ratio of the total perimeter to the total cross-sectional area of the branches. Data (mean ± SD) were compared between unaffected dogs and dogs with idiopathic chylothorax. RESULTS: The cisterna chyli included more branches in dogs with chylothorax (4.30 ± 1.57) than in unaffected dogs (1.67 ± 0.56, P = .02), occupying a relative perimeter approximately double that in unaffected dogs (P < .001). The relative cross-sectional area of the cisterna chyli was approximately twofold smaller in affected (0.73 ± 0.35) than in unaffected (1.63 ± 0.91, P = .02) dogs. The fraction of dogs with branches greater than 25% of the cross-sectional area of the aorta tended to be larger in unaffected dogs (P = .07). Most larger branches were located dorsal or to the right of the aorta. CONCLUSION: The cisterna chyli of dogs with idiopathic chylothorax contained smaller and more numerous branches compared with that of unaffected dogs. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Altered cisterna chyli morphology may impact the surgical approach for cisterna chyli ablation in dogs with idiopathic chylothorax.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".