Outcomes and comparison of modified percutaneous cystolithotomy and traditional open cystotomy in 52 cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare short- and long-term clinical variables in cats undergoing a modified percutaneous cystolithotomy (PCCLm) or open cystotomy (OC) and to identify risk factors associated with complications and outcomes within the groups. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. ANIMALS: Fifty-two client-owned cats. METHODS: or Fisher's exact tests and two-sample t-tests were used to evaluate effects of categorical and numerical clinical variables respectively on outcomes within PCCLm and OC groups and between PCCLm and OC groups. RESULTS: A total of 54 procedures were performed, 19 PCCLm (36.5%) and 35 OC (65.5%). Hospitalization duration (p = .031) and incision length (p = .002) were greater in the OC group. Incisional infections were associated with hospitalization duration in the OC group (p = .048). Incomplete urolith removal was associated with increased surgical time (p = .039) when no additional procedures were performed in the OC group. For PCCLm, incomplete urolith removal was associated with lower urinary tract signs within 14 days postoperatively (p = .018), increased incision length (p = .029), anesthesia time (p = .017), and hospitalization duration (p = .027). CONCLUSION: Modified percutaneous cystolithotomy resulted in shorter incisions and hospitalization duration postoperatively in comparison with OC but no other clear advantages of PCCLm were identified. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The PCCLm procedure is an acceptable alternative to OC for urolith removal in cats.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".