MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162011950 · doi:10.5818/19-09-213.1

Diagnosis and Surgical Management of Cholecystolithiasis in Two Adult Inland Bearded Dragons (Pogona vitticeps)

2021· article· en· W3162011950 on OpenAlexaff
Hanae Pouillevet, Jessica Aymen, Cédric B. Larouche, Pauline Delnatte, Claire Louvard, Stéphane Lair, Isabelle Masseau, Claire Vergneau‐Grosset

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Herpetological Medicine and Surgery · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurtle Biology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalToronto ZooCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLethargyGallbladderMedicineAnatomySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Two male inland bearded dragons ( Pogona vitticeps ) of 5 and 6 yr of age were presented for anorexia with and without lethargy, respectively. In both cases, a firm, spherical, and mobile mass, measuring 2 cm in diameter, was palpated in the cranio-medial coelom. Radiographs were unremarkable. Ultrasonographic evaluation was highly suggestive of cholecystolithiasis. Coeliotomy confirmed the presence of a markedly enlarged gallbladder containing a cholecystolith in both cases, and cholecystectomies were performed. Both dragons resumed eating after 1–7 days and were doing well 3–6 months postoperatively. The gallbladder wall was unremarkable on histology, and the choleliths were composed of protein and calcium carbonate crystals. Cholecystolithiasis in bearded dragons has been the subject of very few case reports, probably due to its low occurrence. The lack of available data on the diagnosis and management may have led to this condition being underdiagnosed in this species. Ultrasonography was essential to the clinical diagnosis of cholecystolithiasis in our two cases and should be recommended as part of the diagnostic approach of bearded dragons with cranio-medial coelomic masses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Herpetological Medicine and SurgerySame topicTurtle Biology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207