Surgical treatment of a double aortic arch in a dog.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An 8-month-old spayed female Labrador retriever dog was evaluated for regurgitation 6 months after surgery for a suspected vascular ring anomaly. The dog had a history of regurgitation and slow development as a puppy. An initial left-sided exploratory thoracotomy was unsuccessful in identifying and treating a vascular ring anomaly. The dog was subsequently presented to the PennVet Emergency Service for regurgitation. Thoracic radiography showed cranial thoracic esophageal dilation and an esophageal foreign body that was then removed endoscopically. Subsequent computed tomographic (CT) angiography revealed a double aortic arch. A left 4th intercostal space thoracotomy was performed. The smaller left aortic arch and a left ligamentum arteriosum were ligated and transected. The dog recovered uneventfully and was healthy at the 1-month follow-up visit. This is the 5th reported successful surgical correction of a double aortic arch in a dog. Computed tomographic angiography was essential in diagnosis and surgical planning. Key clinical message: Although uncommon, double aortic arches can occur and present a diagnostic and surgical challenge when a persistent right aortic arch is suspected. Computed tomographic angiography provides an accurate preoperative diagnosis and allows for surgical planning.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".