Comparison of the diagnostic yield of 3 and 5 mm laparoscopic liver biopsy forceps in cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To determine whether 3 and 5 mm laparoscopic cup biopsy forceps provide samples of equivalent diagnostic quality in cats. Study design Experimental study. Animals Twelve colony cats undergoing a concurrent nutrition study. Methods Two biopsy forceps (3 and 5 mm) and three biopsy techniques (twist, pull, and twist + pull) were used to collect 68 laparoscopic liver samples. Biopsies were performed consecutively with the 3 and 5 mm biopsy sites adjacent to each other. Data analyzed included the number of portal triads and hepatic lobules, tissue crush and fragmentation, overall sample area (mm 2 ), sample weight, and agreement regarding morphologic diagnosis. Results The 5 mm forceps provided more hepatic lobules, portal triads, and a larger tissue weight and histologic area (mm 2 ) ( p < .01). The twist and pull techniques provide more hepatic lobules and portal triads compared to the twist + pull technique while the twist + pull technique resulted in greater tissue crush compared to the twist technique ( p = .0097). There was good agreement for morphological diagnosis between the 3 and 5 mm samples using the twist + pull technique but not for the twist or pull techniques. Conclusion Liver samples can be safely collected with 3 or 5 mm laparoscopic biopsy forceps and provide sufficient tissue for histopathology analysis in cats, with minimal artifact. The diagnostic accuracy of 3 mm samples remains unknown. Clinical significance Although 3 mm laparoscopic cup biopsy forceps provided samples of sufficient diagnostic quality for histopathologic interpretation in cats, further studies are required to assess their diagnostic accuracy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".