Comparing 3 mm and 5 mm laparoscopic liver biopsy samples in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether 3 mm cup biopsy forceps (CBF) provide equivalent diagnostic samples to 5 mm CBF for histopathologic diagnosis, bacterial culture, and copper quantification. STUDY DESIGN: Clinical prospective study. ANIMALS: Ten client-owned dogs, presenting for laparoscopic liver biopsy (LLB). METHODS: Dogs underwent LLB, and paired samples were collected using 3 and 5 mm CBF. Portal triad and hepatic lobule counts, crush and fragmentation artifacts, copper concentration, bacterial culture results, and agreement on histopathologic diagnosis were compared. RESULTS: Both CBF sizes allowed for easy sample collection and resulted in minimal hemorrhage. An average of 12.13 (confidence limit (CL): 9.4-14.9) and 17.84 (CL: 15.1-20.6) portal triads were obtained using a 3 and 5 mm CBF, respectively (p = .0003). A portal triad count of 11 or more was achieved in 73.3% of the 3 mm and 93.3% of the 5 mm samples. Gwets AC1 coefficient showed a high level of agreement (0.8) for overall histopathologic diagnosis (p < .0001). The 3 mm CBF crush scores were higher (median of the differences: -1; range: -1 to 1) (p = .035). There was no difference in fragmentation scores (p = .935). CONCLUSION: The 3 mm CBF yielded smaller samples in terms of size and portal triad count compared with the 5 mm CBF. However, the portal triad count was sufficient in a majority of samples and histologic agreement with the 5 mm CBF was excellent. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: In dogs, a 3 mm CBF yields adequate samples for histopathologic interpretation, copper quantification, and bacterial culture.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".