MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W75351807

Foaling rates and risk factors for abortion in pregnant mares presented for medical or surgical treatment of colic: 153 cases (1993-2005).

2009· article· en· W75351807 on OpenAlexaff
Tracey Chenier, Ashley E. Whitehead

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Equine Medical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCapillary refillAbortionPregnancyAnestheticHorseObstetricsMedical recordRetrospective cohort studyAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to determine foaling rates in mares presented for medical or surgical treatment of colic, and to examine risk factors associated with abortion following colic. A retrospective analysis of 153 medical records found that mares treated surgically for colic (P = 0.0007) were 3.5 times more likely to have a negative pregnancy outcome than were mares treated medically for colic. Anesthetic time (P = 0.01) and intra-operative hypotension (P = 0.03) were significantly associated with negative pregnancy outcome. Mares with an anesthetic time > or = 3 h were 6 times more likely to abort. Signs of endotoxemia (P = 0.30), hypoxia (P = 0.89), flunixin meglumine administration (P = 0.13), mucous membrane color at the time of presentation (P = 0.82) and capillary refill time (P = 0.76) were not associated with pregnancy outcome. There was no difference in the foaling rate for mares that had received progestin supplementation versus those that had not (P = 0.42). In this study, the significant risk factors for abortion were surgically treated colic, long anesthetic time, and intraoperative hypotension.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations23
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicVeterinary Equine Medical ResearchFrench-language works237,207