MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

What is your diagnosis? Intracranial mass in a dog

2009· article· en· W2078299560 on OpenAlexaff
N. Jane Harms, Ryan Dickinson, Belle Marie Nibblett, Bruce Wobeser

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary Clinical Pathology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVeterinary Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPathologyMonocytosisMedicineMeningiomaNeutrophiliaDifferential diagnosisEosinophilicAnatomyCytologyHistopathological examinationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 9-year-old, spayed female Chihuahua was presented for evaluation of acute, progressive neurologic disease. On physical examination the dog was depressed and laterally recumbent. The dog had marked neutrophilia with a toxic left shift and monocytosis. Using computed tomography with contrast enhancement a large intracranial mass lesion was identified in the rostral portion of the brain. The mass extended from the central thalamic region rostral to the cribiform plate and obliterated the lateral ventricles. A fine needle aspirate of the mass contained moderately pleomorphic polygonal cells with many intranuclear cytoplasmic pseudoinclusions (ICPs). The primary differential diagnosis was meningioma, based on cell morphology and the presence of ICPs. At necropsy, the mass was well-demarcated, unencapsulated, and densely cellular. Cells were arranged in papillary projections on fibrovascular stalks, and eosinophilic ICPs and nuclear folding were frequently seen. Cavitated areas of necrosis throughout the tumor mass were filled with intact and degenerated neutrophils. The histopathologic diagnosis was malignant papillary meningioma. ICPs are not frequently observed in Wright-stained cytologic preparations but may be found in many types of neoplasms, including meningiomas.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0080.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVeterinary Clinical PathologySame topicVeterinary Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207