MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4382918701

Cricopharyngeal and thyropharyngeal myectomy for management of cricopharyngeal achalasia in a 6-month-old coton de Tulear dog.

2023· article· en· W4382918701 on OpenAlexaff
Bryan Welch, Adam Ogilvie, Ian Porter, Emilia Bourassi

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersRoyal Canin
KeywordsMedicineCricopharyngeal myotomyDysphagiaSurgeryPercutaneous endoscopic gastrostomyGastrostomyAchalasiaFeeding tubeMyotomyEsophagus
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 6-week-old intact female coton de Tulear dog presented to a veterinary teaching hospital (VTH) internal medicine service for dysphagia that was persistent since birth. The patient was diagnosed with cricopharyngeal achalasia based on a fluoroscopic swallow study. To facilitate surgical intervention, a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube was placed to bypass the upper esophageal sphincter and provide nutritional support until the dog was larger. At 6 mo of age, the dog underwent unilateral cricopharyngeal and thyropharyngeal myectomy. Marked improvement in dysphagia was noted immediately postoperatively. Improvement in dysphagia persisted in this dog, with continued marked improvement in clinical signs noted 1 y postoperatively. Key clinical message: Cricopharyngeal achalasia can be successfully managed with surgical intervention with a good long-term prognosis. Before surgical intervention, nutritional support is of critical importance. A combined procedure of cricopharyngeal and thyropharyngeal myectomy may be associated with outcomes superior to those of alternative procedures.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designCase report
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments→French-language works237,207→