SONOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF PRESUMPTIVELY NORMAL CANINE MEDIAL ILIAC AND SUPERFICIAL INGUINAL LYMPH NODES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The medial iliac and superficial inguinal lymph nodes are not routinely palpable in the dog, and ultrasound imaging provides an alternate noninvasive technique to assess these lymph nodes, as well as to guide needle aspiration. Herein we describe the ultrasound characteristics of the medial iliac and superficial inguinal lymph nodes in 50 healthy dogs, as well as frequency and ease of node detection. The relationship between the size of the lymph nodes and the following variables was assessed: age, gender, body weight, body condition score, body length, and thoracic height and width. Right and left medial iliac lymph nodes were detected in 50 (100%) dogs, right superficial inguinal lymph node(s) in 49 (98%) dogs, and left superficial inguinal lymph node(s) in 47 (96%) dogs. In > 90% of both sets of lymph nodes, the echogenicity was hypoechoic or isoechoic to surrounding tissues, with a corticomedullary or homogenous echotexture, smooth, clearly defined margins, and a fusiform shape. Increasing weight, distance from the sternal manubrium to the ischium, and thoracic height and width were associated with increased lymph node size (P-values < 0.05). Average lymph node sizes and range of sizes provide preliminary reference values for the medial iliac and superficial inguinal lymph nodes in normal dogs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".