Anatomic characterization of the location of the esophageal ostium relative to the rima glottidis on CT in adult Labrador Retrievers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterize the anatomic location of the esophageal ostium relative to the rima glottidis in adult Labrador Retrievers with the use of CT. ANIMALS: 98 CT scans of 75 adult Labrador Retrievers. PROCEDURES: A search of the medical records database identified records of Labrador Retrievers that underwent CT of the head and neck between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018. Evaluators, blinded to each other's results, reviewed CT images and measured esophageal area at the level of the rima glottidis. For each dog, the left esophageal percentage (LEP) was calculated as the esophageal area left of the rima glottidis midline divided by the overall esophageal area at that level. Variables (age, sex, patient position, intubation status, and maxillary support during CT) were evaluated for association with LEP. The CT images of dogs that had multiple scans were assessed for within-patient variance. RESULTS: Mean LEP was 56.2 ± 18.1% for all dogs. Only right lateral recumbency was significantly associated with LEP, with a lower LEP for dogs positioned in right lateral recumbency (42.4 ± 12.7%), compared with left lateral (63.0 ± 7.4%) or sternal (57.3 ± 18.8%) recumbency. No association was detected between LEP and other variables assessed. Eleven dogs had multiple CT scans; within-patient variance for LEP was ± 26.6%. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results indicated that, although most dogs had an LEP > 50%, the esophageal ostium was fairly centrally located in most dogs and may be more mobile than previously thought. Additional research is warranted to assess this mobility and whether the esophageal ostium location, relative to the larynx, affects the incidence of aspiration pneumonia in dogs undergoing surgical treatment for geriatric-onset laryngeal paralysis and polyneuropathy.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".