MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414085742

Laparoscopic cryptorchidectomy in 10 equids using a single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) port device.

2025· article· en· W4414085742 on OpenAlexaff
Alejandro Merchán, Nicola Cribb

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPort (circuit theory)Laparoscopic surgeryAbdominal surgeryLaparoscopyAbdomenInvasive surgeryVeress needle
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

incision in combination with 1 or 2 15-millimeter para-inguinal incisions to exteriorize the intra-abdominal testicles. Ten animals, 2 bilateral abdominal cryptorchid horses and 8 unilateral abdominal cryptorchid equids, underwent cryptorchidectomy using the SILS technique. The median surgical and anesthesia times were 90 min (range: 75 to 135 min) and 150 min (range: 120 to 195 min), respectively. No intraoperative complications occurred. Two cases had transient pyrexia after surgery. No other postoperative complications were recorded. This technique reduced the risk of iatrogenic damage of the gastrointestinal tract, eliminated the need for additional instrument portals, provided an excellent maintenance of the pneumoperitoneum, and allowed easy testicle removal. None of the animals in the study developed postoperative emphysema. Key clinical message: The modified SILS technique was an effective approach for testicle removal in abdominal cryptorchids that did not result in any complications in the cases presented.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicReproductive Physiology in Livestock→French-language works237,207→