Comparison of sternal, iliac, and humeral bone marrow aspiration in Beagle dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sternal bone marrow aspiration in dogs is not commonly performed as it is considered technically challenging in smaller dogs. However, the sternum is readily accessible and associated with less pain from aspiration compared with other sites. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to investigate feasibility, ease, number of attempts, safety, and sample quality of sternal bone marrow aspirates in small dogs. METHODS: Bone marrow aspirates were obtained in a randomized order from 3 sites in 26 clinically healthy Beagles under general anesthesia. Samples were obtained from the sternum using one-inch 20- or 22-gauge hypodermic needles, from the right greater tubercle of the humerus, and the right iliac crest using 18-gauge Illinois needles. The difficulty of each procedure was scored. Two types of bone marrow smears were prepared and reviewed by a pathologist unaware of site of aspiration or dog. The number of particles per slide and overall slide quality were scored. The site of aspiration and the cranial thoracic wall were evaluated at autopsy for evidence of trauma or pneumothorax. RESULTS: The number of attempts and time for bone marrow aspiration were greater for ilium than for sternum or humerus, but the sternum was the easiest to aspirate. Smear quality and particle number were similar for all sites. Neither trauma at the site of aspiration nor pneumothorax were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Aspiration of sternal bone marrow with hypodermic needles is feasible and safe in Beagle dogs. Samples equivalent in quality to those from the humerus or ilium can be obtained from clinically normal dogs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".