MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390584533 · doi:10.3389/fvets.2023.1307938

Comparison of transrectal and transabdominal transducers for use in fast localized abdominal sonography of horses presenting with colic

2024· article· en· W4390584533 on OpenAlexaff
Hanna Haardt, Alfredo Romero, Søren Boysen, Jean-Yin Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Veterinary Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Equine Medical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRenal colicRadiologyStomachAbdomenAcoustic shadowCystAbdominal ultrasonographyUltrasonographyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abdominal ultrasonography is valuable in the diagnosis of equine colic. Fast localized abdominal sonography of horses (FLASH) enables practitioners with limited experience to perform ultrasonography in emergency settings. However, many practitioners only possess rectal format linear array transducers (RFLT). The hypotheses are: (a) A low frequency curvilinear transducer (LFCT) and RFLT will detect free abdominal fluid and abnormal small intestinal loops with similar frequency during FLASH, and (b) there will be a difference between the transducers for detection of gastric abnormalities and nephrosplenic entrapment. The objective is to compare transcutaneous abdominal ultrasonographic detection of abnormalities in horses presenting with colic using a LFCT and RFLT. Twenty-four horses requiring FLASH for investigation of colic were enrolled. Horses that were too painful to undergo transcutaneous abdominal ultrasonographic examination were excluded. A single investigator performed FLASH on all horses using a RFLT, while one of three other clinicians simultaneously performed FLASH using a LFCT. Comparison of abnormal findings between the two transducers was performed using Chi square, Fisher's exact or Wilcoxon tests. The incidence of identification of abnormal findings was similar between the two transducers for all comparisons except the visibility of the left kidney and stomach (kidney LFCT 81.25% vs. RFLT 22.92%, stomach LFCT 87.5% vs. RFLT 62.5%). While there are limitations to using a RFLT to identify nephrosplenic entrapment of the colon and detection of the stomach, it reliably detects other common abnormalities, including peritoneal effusion, lesions of the small intestine, and changes to the wall of the large colon and cecum.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Veterinary ScienceSame topicVeterinary Equine Medical ResearchFrench-language works237,207