A 6-year retrospective study of Canine Gastric Dilatation-Volvulus treated\nwith incorporating gastropexy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gastric dilatation-volvulus (GDV) is a potentially life-threatening syndrome\nof multifactorial origins that require immediate appropriate medical and\nsurgical treatment as well as intensive postoperative care. Many studies have\nshown multiple risk factors for GDV. They include breed, anatomy, genetics,\nage, feeding, activities, behaviors and other factors. Surgery should be\nperformed as soon as the GDV dogs have been treated medically and are stable\nenough to be given general anesthesia. The principal objectives of surgical\ntreatment are decompression and repositioning of the stomach, resection of a\npossible pathologic gastric wall, and prophylactic permanent gastropexy. In\nour clinic, a surgical method of choice is ‘Incorporating gastropexy’. We use\nthis technique routinely because this technique is technically simple and can\nbe learned and performed easily. Additionally, this technique takes less\nsurgical time which diminishes the risk of anesthetic complications. The sex\ndistribution of dogs in our study shows that male dogs present slightly more\nthan female dogs with male to female ratio 1.72:1. The result of dog\npopulation relative to age in our study is similar toformer studies which\nolder dogs are more common. Fourty-three breeds were represented in our clinic\nduring the six years. The fourth most frequent breeds include the German\nShepherd (10.4 %), the Great Dane (7.5 %) and large mixed breed (7.5 %), and\nthe Dobermans (6.4 %), respectively. The third most frequent clinical signs\nare of distending or tympanic abdomens in 112 (61.87 %), pale mucous membranes\nin 47 (25.96 %), and tachycardia in 45 (24.86 %), respectively. Thirty-two\ndogs have one or more associated radiographic findings of problem with their\ncardiovascular, gastrointestinal and/or reticuloendothelial system. The third\nmost frequent were of GDV with hypovolemic hearts, GDV with gaseous distention\nof the intestinal loop, and each of GDV with spleenomegaly and GDV with\nmegaesophagus, respectively. Of the 181 GDV-involved symptomatic patients, 125\n(69.06 %) dogs were performed gastropexy. Of these 125 dogs underwent\ngastropexy, 113 (90.40 %) dogs survived and were discharged from the hospital.\nOf the 181 GDV-involved symptomatic patients, 40 (22.22 %) dogs were treated\nconservatively. Of these 40 dogs underwent conservative treatment, 26 (65 %)\ndogs were successfully treated and discharged from the hospital. Of the 181\nGDV-involved symptomatic patients, 16 (19.75 %) dogs were performed\nlaparotomy. Of these 16 dogs underwent laparotomy, 15 (93.75 %) dogs were\neuthanized due to irreversible pathologic changes of the stomach, hypovolumic\nshock, arrhythmias, splenic thrombosis and recurrent GDV. No dog which\nunderwent laparotomy died. Only one (6.25 %) was discharged from the hospital\nafter removing a foreign body from the stomach and it has been hospitalized of\n3 days. In this study, overall survival and survival in the surgically treated\ngroup (gastropexy) are 77.35 % and 90.4 %, respectively. It might be concluded\nthat coagulation parameters (aPTT and PT), liver enzymes (ALT, AST, and GLDH),\nplasma ionized calcium, and duration of clinical signs from onset to first\npresentation are prognostic indicators for survival and mortality. According\nto the 90.40 % survival rate of surgically treated group (incorporating\ngastropexy), this technique seem to be more practical to the surgeon to\nperform the immediate surgical correction of GDV.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".