Clinical presentation and short‐term outcomes of dogs ≥15 kg with extrahepatic portosystemic shunts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe demographics, clinical presentation, shunt anatomy, clinical progression, and complications in large dogs ≥15 kg with single extrahepatic portosystemic shunts (EHPSS) treated with or without surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective (10 university hospitals, one private referral institution). ANIMALS: Dogs ≥15 kg (n = 63). METHODS: Medical records of dogs ≥15 kg diagnosed with EHPSS between January 01, 2005 and December 31, 2020 were reviewed. Dogs had a minimum follow-up of 90 days. Signalment, clinical signs, diagnostics, shunt anatomy, treatment interventions, and perioperative complications were assessed. RESULTS: Median age was 21.9 months (IQR: 9-36.8). The breed most represented was the Golden retriever (17/63 dogs). Portocaval (17/63) and splenocaval (15/63) shunt configurations were most common. Portal vein hypoplasia was noted in 18 imaging reports. Of the surgically treated dogs, 14/45 (35.6%) had short-term complications, and 3/45 (6.7%) had shunt-related deaths. Medical management was discontinued in 15/40 and reduced in 9/40 of surviving dogs who had surgical attenuation. All medically managed, nonattenuated dogs (18/18) were maintained on their original shunt-related medication regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical presentation of dogs ≥15 kg with extrahepatic portosystemic shunts was similar to the more commonly reported small breed dogs. Surgical management of single EHPSS in large dogs ≥15 kg had similar clinical short-term outcomes as small breed dogs. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Clinicians should be aware that large breed dogs with EHPSS share similar characteristics and clinical outcomes to small breed dogs. The significance of the presence of a hypoplastic portal vein warrants further research. Surgical treatment is a viable option for large breed dogs with EHPSS.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".