MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

EPIDEMIOLOGY OF NEOPLASIA IN CAPTIVE BLACK-FOOTED FERRETS (MUSTELA NIGRIPES), 1986-1996

2002· article· en· W1925706095 on OpenAlexaff
Stéphane Lair, Ian K. Barker, Kay G. Mehren, Elizabeth Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Zoo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPopulationApocrineMustela putoriusPathologyZoologyPhysiologyAnatomyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The epidemiology of neoplastic disease was studied retrospectively in the captive population of black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes). Postmortem reports were reviewed and archived tissues examined from 184 of the 227 adult (>1 yr old) black-footed ferrets that died from the beginning of the current captive propagation program in late 1985 to the end of 1996. A total of 185 neoplasms, of 28 distinct phenotypes, were seen in 102 (55.4%) of these ferrets. There was more than one tumor type present in 51 ferrets. Tumors of the apocrine glands (28.3%), renal tubular neoplasms (20.7%), and biliary cystadenoma or carcinoma (20.1%) were the most common neoplasms. The probability of developing most types of neoplasms increased with age. Neoplasms of the apocrine glands were more common in males and may be hormonally influenced. The unusually high prevalence of biliary cystadenocarcinoma may be secondary to the common occurrence of intrahepatic biliary cysts in this population. Although neoplasia is an important cause of mortality in captive adult black-footed ferrets, its impact on captive propagation of the species, and on the wild population, is probably limited because clinically significant tumors are encountered almost exclusively in postreproductive ferrets (>3 yr old) and because ferrets released into their natural habitat rarely reach susceptible age.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations35
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Zoo and Wildlife MedicineSame topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207