Pathologic Fracture in Dogs with Suspected or Confirmed Osteosarcoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical presentation of pathologic fractures associated with suspected or confirmed osteosarcoma in dogs and to assess treatment and survival times. STUDY DESIGN: Case series. ANIMALS: Dogs (n=25) appendicular pathologic fracture. METHODS: Medical records (January 1997-May 2008) of dogs with pathologic fracture associated with a suspected or confirmed osteosarcoma were reviewed. Dogs were included if they had radiographic evidence of a pathologic fracture and a presumptive or definitive diagnosis of osteosarcoma. Radiographic details, histopathology, and/or cytology findings were recorded. Overall median survival time (MST) and MST of treated dogs were calculated. Age, sex, breed, and other concurrent treatment were evaluated. RESULTS: Rottweilers, Irish Wolfhounds, and Greyhounds were the most common breeds represented. Most dogs had minor trauma and 60% had lameness preceding the fracture. Most commonly, fractures were nondisplaced with minimal comminution. None of the dogs had radiographic evidence of pulmonary metastases at admission. Immediate (13 dogs; 52%) and delayed (4; 16%) euthanasia were performed. One dog was not treated and died 90 days after diagnosis. Three dogs (12%) were treated by amputation alone, 1 (4%) with amputation and chemotherapy, and 3 (12%) with internal fixation using an interlocking nail. Overall MST was 1 day (range, 0-623 days) and MST of treated dogs was 406.5 days. Histologic confirmation of osteosarcoma was available in all treated dogs and 6 euthanatized dogs. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of pathologic fracture associated with presumptive osteosarcoma should be considered as an option to amputation or euthanasia if owners desire other options.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".