Outcomes of surgically treated sialoceles in 21 cats: A multi‐institutional retrospective study (2010–2021)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report the outcomes of cats that underwent surgical correction for sialoceles. STUDY DESIGN: Multi-institutional retrospective cohort study. ANIMALS: Twenty-one client-owned cats. METHODS: Medical records were examined of cats diagnosed with sialocele, which underwent surgical intervention over an 11-year period at one of 10 referral hospitals. The data collected included signalment, clinical signs, diagnostic imaging, histopathology, surgical procedures performed, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: The most common presenting complaints for cats with sialocele included dysphagia and ptyalism. Only two cats had a recent history of trauma, and one was diagnosed with a concurrent sialolith. Most displayed visible tissue swelling, with ranulae being most common. Surgical treatment consisted of sialoadenectomy and/or marsupialization. Intraoperative complications occurred in three cats, and postoperative complications in five cats. No recurrence or development of contralateral sialoceles were reported during the follow-up period (30-968 days). CONCLUSION: The majority of cats did not have a clear underlying cause for developing a sialocele. The sublingual and mandibular salivary glands were presumed to be the most commonly affected. Mandibular and sublingual sialoadenectomy and/or marsupialization provided resolution of clinical signs to the 21 cats that underwent these procedures. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Sialocele, although rare, should remain a differential diagnosis when managing cats with relevant clinical signs. Surgical intervention appears to offer resolution of signs with apparently low overall risk of complication or short-term recurrence. In cats it is necessary to evaluate whether sialoadenectomy is necessary, or whether marsupialization alone should be attempted as a less invasive first-line surgical intervention.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".