Gastrointestinal foreign bodies in pet pigs: 17 cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pigs have an indiscriminate eating behavior placing them at high risk of developing foreign body (FB) obstructions. OBJECTIVES: Describe the clinical and diagnostic features, treatments, and outcome of pet pigs diagnosed with gastrointestinal (GI) FBs. Medical and surgical treatments, pig outcomes, and post-mortem findings were also investigated. ANIMALS: Seventeen pet pigs. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study was conducted. Gastrointestinal FBs were defined as swallowed objects that became lodged within the gastrointestinal tract distal to the cardia identified during exploratory laparotomy. RESULTS: Common clinical signs were anorexia/hyporexia, tachypnea, vomiting, dehydration, tachycardia, and ileus. Diagnostic imaging identified the presence of a FB in 4 cases. Upon celiotomy, the FBs were in the stomach and small intestine in 17 cases and large colon in 2 cases. Types of FB included fruit pit, diaper, and metallic objects. Of the 17 pigs, 15 (88%) were discharged from the hospital and 2 (12%) were euthanized. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Clinical signs of GI FB were similar to those reported in obstipated pigs. Diagnostic imaging has limitations for detection of FB. Surgical removal of FBs in pigs carried a good prognosis.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".