CT features of divisional bile ducts in healthy Labrador Retrievers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computed tomography (CT) is increasingly being used for the study of gallbladder and bile duct diseases. The first step in interpreting CT findings is understanding the cross-sectional anatomy of the structures involved, but there are no published studies describing the CT features of the divisional bile ducts. In dogs, anatomic studies report two common patterns including three or four divisional bile ducts. The aim of this retrospective, descriptive, anatomical study was to describe the size and pattern of the visible divisional bile ducts, based on their location and extension, using contrast-enhanced CT in a group of Labrador Retrievers without evidence of hepatobiliary diseases. The correlation between the biliary duct number and dimensions, and the visceral fat area percentage (VFA%) was also evaluated. The right lateral divisional duct (RLD) was visualized in four of 40 dogs, the left lateral divisional duct (LLD) in nine of 40 dogs, and in 17 of 40 dogs, both were simultaneously visualized. In 10 of 40 dogs, the RLD and LLD were not highlighted. When visible, the RLD has a median diameter of 0.23 cm and a median length of 0.82 cm. The LLD has a median diameter of 0.23 cm and a median length of 2.72 cm. The median diameter of the common bile duct before and after the insertion of divisional bile ducts was 0.23 and 0.25 cm, respectively. No correlation with the VFA% was found. At least one of the divisional bile ducts could be visualized using contrast-enhanced CT in the majority of sampled dogs (75%) .
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".