Comparison of Computed Tomographic and Radiographic Popliteal Lymphangiography in Normal Dogs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To (1) describe computed tomographic (CT) popliteal lymphangiography; (2) compare the number of thoracic duct (TD) branches detected by CT and by radiography after popliteal lymphangiography; and (3) to compare the number of branches detected after left and right popliteal lymphangiography. STUDY DESIGN: Experimental study. ANIMALS: Adult dogs (n=6). METHODS: A randomly selected popliteal lymph node was percutaneously injected with 12 L iodinated contrast medium through a 25-g butterfly catheter over 4-5 minutes. Lateral and ventrodorsal (VD) thoracic radiograph projections and thoracic CT were performed. The procedure was repeated using the contralateral lymph node after a 48-72 hours washout period. RESULTS: One dog had TD branches visible on CT but not on radiographs. A significantly greater number of TD branches were observed with CT popliteal lymphangiography compared with lateral and VD radiographic popliteal lymphangiography (P=.003 and P<.001, respectively). The number of visible TD branches observed between the 6th thoracic and 1st lumbar vertebrae were not significantly different in these dogs (P=.146). A significant difference in number of TD branches observed was not found after left or right popliteal lymph node injection (P=.097). CONCLUSIONS: CT popliteal lymphangiography consistently identified a greater number of TD branches when compared with radiographic popliteal lymphangiography. Injection of either popliteal lymph node resulted in the same number of TD branches being observed.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it