Comparison of concurrent imaging modalities for staging of dogs with appendicular primary bone tumours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed the use of whole body computed tomography (CT) for the evaluation of metastasis in dogs with primary appendicular bone tumours compared to long bone survey radiography, bone scintigraphy and thoracic radiographs. Fifteen dogs were included in this pilot study. A construct reference standard was used for detection of bone metastasis, and negative thoracic radiographs were compared against CT. Definitive lesions were only identified on bone scintigraphy. Not all lesions agreed with the construct reference standard. No definitive lesions were identified on survey radiographs or CT. Lesions were identified on thoracic CT that were not visible radiographically. Equivocal ground glass pulmonary lesions progressed in three of four cases. Whole body CT was not a suitable alternative to bone scintigraphy; however, it was useful as an adjunctive diagnostic modality. Pulmonary lesions were visible on CT that were not seen radiographically and ground glass pulmonary lesions in dogs should be considered suspicious for metastasis.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".