MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

What is your diagnosis? Intra‐abdominal mass aspirate from a spayed dog with abdominal pain

2009· article· en· W2036625951 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary Clinical Pathology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemostasis and retained surgical items
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGossypibomaMedicineBasophilicLabrador RetrieverAbdominal massForeign bodyCytologyPathologyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An 8-year-old, spayed female Labrador Retriever was presented for evaluation of unwillingness to exercise. On clinical examination abdominal pain was elicited, and a midabdominal mass was detected in survey radiographs. Ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of the intra-abdominal mass was done. The cytologic findings indicated chronic granulomatous inflammation with reactive fibroplasia, cholesterol crystals, and extracellular foreign material. The foreign material consisted of opaque, basophilic fragments of uniform width (5-10 mum) and variable length (30-180 microm) and was observed extracellularly and within macrophages. The material was birefringent under polarized light. Histologic examination of the excised mass confirmed the cytologic findings and a diagnosis of gossypiboma (textiloma) was made, consistent with retention of a surgical sponge. This case provides a unique example of the utility of fine-needle aspiration for the diagnosis of gossypiboma.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.297 · 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