Standing laparoscopic abdominal lavage using a suction-irrigation device in 2 horses with primary suppurative peritonitis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of a laparoscopic suction-irrigation device in 2 standing horses for lavage of the abdomen for the treatment of primary suppurative peritonitis is reported. Two horses were presented with a 1- to 2-week history of weight loss. Abdominocentesis revealed highly elevated total nucleated cell count. Peritoneal lavage systems were placed in both horses, but complications prevented adequate lavage. Both horses underwent standing laparoscopy; the dorsal abdomen was explored and the abdomen was profusely lavaged, using a suction-irrigation device. The procedure was efficient and allowed adequate visualization of the dorsal abdomen and lavage. A successful outcome was achieved in both cases. Key clinical message: Lavage of the abdomen of horses with peritonitis can be achieved under standing sedation, using a laparoscopic technique. In appropriately selected cases, this allows for adequate visualization of the dorsal abdomen and efficacious abdominal lavage.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| 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".