A Canine Case of Complex Carcinoma of the Mammary Gland with Metastasis to the Axillary Lymph Node
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 10-year-old, female Labrador Retriever had a well-circumscribed mass beneath the third nipple of right mammary gland. Histologically, the tumor was composed of multiple lobules and consisted of both neoplastic epithelial cells forming tubulo-acinar structures and myoepithelial cells arranged in solid nests. These neoplastic cells rarely showed nuclear atypia, mitotic activity without evidences of vascular invasion. However, multifocal metastatic foci were detected in the axillary lymph node. Therefore, the tumor was diagnosed as complex carcinoma of the mammary gland. In the present case, differential diagnosis between benign tumor (complex adenoma) and malignant one (complex carcinoma) was challenging on the basis of histopathological findings on routine hematoxylin and eosin-stained sections of the primary tumor. Therefore, we compared the expression of proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) in the neoplastic cells between 3 complex carcinomas including the present case and 9 complex adenomas of canine mammary gland. The PCNA-positive rate among the neoplastic cells was significantly higher in complex carcinomas than in complex adenomas. These results indicate the importance of histopathological evaluation of the regional lymph nodes, and PCNA may be a useful parameter for the differential diagnosis in canine complex type mammary tumors.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".