MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089713393 · doi:10.1111/vcp.12136

Rhabdomyosarcoma associated with the lead wire of a pacemaker generator implant

2014· article· en· W2089713393 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kelley M. Thieman Mankin, Mark D. Dunbar, David Toplon, Pamela E. Ginn, Herbert W. Maisenbacher, Marije Risselada

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary Clinical Pathology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVeterinary Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhabdomyosarcomaPathologyVimentinMedicineSarcomaAnatomyImplantSurgeryImmunohistochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An 11-year-old female spayed Labrador Retriever was presented for a draining, painful subcutaneous mass palpated over a previously implanted pacemaker generator. Infection was suspected and the mass was removed surgically. On cut surface, the mass was friable and mottled tan to brown with firm pale tan nodules, surrounding the pacemaker lead wire adjacent to the pacemaker generator. Cytologic interpretation of impression smears was consistent with a sarcoma, and suggestive of a rhabdomyosarcoma due to the presence of strap-like cells. On histopathologic examination, a highly invasive nodular mass surrounded the pacemaker lead, composed of pleomorphic round, spindle and strap cells, and multinucleated giant cells. The population exhibited microscopic invasion into the deep portion of the fibrous capsule surrounding the pacemaker generator. There were tumor emboli within small to medium subcutaneous veins adjacent to the mass. Immunohistochemically, the neoplastic cells stained positive for α-sarcomeric actin and vimentin, and negative for α-smooth muscle actin, consistent with a rhabdomyosarcoma arising at the site of the pacemaker generator. To our knowledge, this is the first report of a rhabdomyosarcoma associated with the lead wire of a pacemaker generator in a dog.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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