MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295996119 · doi:10.3138/jvme-2021-0161

Feline Ovarian Pedicle Ligation: A Comparison of Two Techniques Taught among AAVMC Institutions

2022· article· en· W4295996119 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kirk P. Miller, Stephen J. Horvath

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Medical Education · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicVeterinary Practice and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLigationLigatureMedicineTubal ligationInternal medicineSurgeryResearch methodology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ligation of the feline ovarian pedicle during ovariohysterectomy is achieved, principally, via one of the following methods: double ligation of the ovarian pedicle or autoligation of the ovarian pedicle, also known as the pedicle tie. The objective of this study was to assess and quantify two methods of teaching feline ovariohysterectomies, specifically ligation of the ovarian pedicle, at American Association of Veterinary Medical Colleges-accredited veterinary schools. Surveys were sent to 52 AAVMC member schools, with an overall response rate of 67.3%. Of the 35 schools that responded to the survey, 34 (97.1%) reported that they teach double ligation of the feline ovarian pedicle, whereas 17 (48.6%) of respondents reported teaching autoligation of the feline ovarian pedicle (2 respondents indicated that a single ligature is sufficient). Only 1 of the schools that reported teaching pedicle ties indicated that it did not teach double ligation of the ovarian pedicle; 16 of the 35 schools that responded to the survey (45.7%) reported teaching both techniques. The results indicate that significantly fewer institutions are currently teaching autoligation of the feline ovarian pedicle than those teaching double ligation of the feline ovarian pedicle.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.460
GPT teacher head0.604
Teacher spread0.143 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Medical EducationSame topicVeterinary Practice and Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207