Evaluation of vincristine-associated myelosuppression in Border Collies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether Border Collies (ATP binding cassette subfamily B1 gene [ABCB1] wildtype) were more likely than other breeds to develop vincristine-associated myelosuppression (VAM) and, if so, whether this was caused by a mutation in ABCB1 distinct from ABCB1-1Δ. ANIMALS: Phase 1 comprised 36 dogs with the ABCB1 wildtype, including 26 dogs with lymphoma (5 Border Collies and 21 dogs representing 13 other breeds) treated with vincristine in a previous study; phase 2 comprised 10 additional Border Collies, including 3 that developed VAM and 7 with an unknown phenotype. PROCEDURES: For phase 1, the prevalence of VAM in ABCB1-wildtype Border Collies was compared with that for ABCB1-wildtype dogs of other breeds with data from a previous study. For phase 2, additional Border Collies were included. Hematologic adverse reactions were graded with Veterinary Co-operative Oncology Group criteria. Genomic DNA was used to amplify and sequence all 27 exons of the canine ABCB1. Sequences from affected dogs were compared with those of unaffected dogs and dogs of unknown phenotype. RESULTS: 3 of 5 Border Collies with the ABCB1 wildtype developed VAM; this was significantly higher than the proportion of other dogs that developed VAM (0/21). A causative mutation for VAM in Border Collies was not identified, although 8 single nucleotide polymorphisms in ABCB1 were detected. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Breed-associated sensitivity to vincristine unrelated to ABCB1 was detected in Border Collies. Veterinarians should be aware of this breed predisposition to VAM. Causes for this apparent breed-associated sensitivity should be explored.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".