MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002898900 · doi:10.1080/00480169.2007.36758

Combined xeno/auto-grafting of a benign osteolytic lesion in a dog, using a novel bovine cancellous bone biomaterial

2007· article· en· W2002898900 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrew J. Worth, KG Thompson, MC Owen, Michael R. Mucalo, EC Firth

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Zealand Veterinary Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone Tumor Diagnosis and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMassey UniversityWaikato Medical Research FoundationMaurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust
KeywordsCurettageCancellous boneMedicineFibrous dysplasiaLesionRadiodensityRadiographyBone graftingHistopathologyRadiologyAnatomyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CASE HISTORY: A 4-year-old female Labrador Retriever was diagnosed with an osteolytic lesion of the right distal radius. CLINICAL FINDINGS: Radiographs indicated a well-circumscribed radiolucent area 18 x 15 x 8 mm, centred on the distal radial physeal scar. DIAGNOSIS: Histopathology, performed via Jamshidi needle biopsy and following surgical curettage, was inconclusive but suggested either an aneurysmal bone cyst or fibrous dysplasia. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A novel processed cancellous bovine bone xenograft was used in conjunction with autogenous cancellous bone (at a ratio of approximately 4:1) to fill the curetted defect. There were no observed complications associated with the use of this new biomaterial. Osteointegration of the bone graft was followed using conventional radiographs and peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) for 10 months post-operatively. Radiographically, the osteolytic lesion modelled to resemble metaphyseal trabeculation. The cross-sectional area and the average bone density of the grafted lesion determined using pQCT data increased over time, suggesting healthy osteoconduction and native bone production.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.791
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations15
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Zealand Veterinary JournalSame topicBone Tumor Diagnosis and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207