Canine limbal melanoma: 30 cases (1992–2004). Part 1. Signalment, clinical and histological features and pedigree analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: (1) To review the signalment, clinical, and histological features of canine limbal melanoma; (2) to perform pedigree analysis on breeds predisposed to limbal melanoma to establish if common ancestry exists; and (3) to investigate if any ancestral relationship exists between canine limbal melanoma and canine anterior uveal melanoma (CAUM). DESIGN: Retrospective study. ANIMALS STUDIED: Thirty dogs with limbal melanoma. METHODS: Medical records of patients were reviewed. Follow-up information was obtained by re-examination of patients or telecommunications with the referring veterinary surgeons or the owners. Pedigrees were analyzed for common ancestry amongst affected dogs. RESULTS The mean age (+/- SD) at diagnosis was 6.2 (+/- 2.75) years with a range from 1 to 11 years. There was a bimodal distribution of ages with a peak at 3-4 years and a peak at 7-10 years. There was no eye predilection or predisposition for sex or coat color. Twenty-five (83%) of the limbal melanomas occurred within a dorsal arc from the dorsomedial to the ventrolateral limbus. Golden retrievers were four times more common in the melanoma group compared to the Animal Health Trust population (P < 0.0001). Labrador retrievers were three times more common in the melanoma group (P=0.01). Pedigree analysis on eight Golden retrievers [limbal melanoma (n=5), CAUM (n=2) and diffuse ocular melanosis (n=1)], revealed a pattern of inter-relatedness consistent with the condition(s) being caused, at least in part, by a genetic mutation(s). A similar level of inter relatedness was evident in six Labrador retrievers (limbal melanoma (n=2) and CAUM (n=4)). In 5/22 cases (23%), histological features suggestive of malignancy were present including intratumor necrosis in 4/22 cases (18%) and cellular atypia in 1/22 cases (5%). CONCLUSIONS: In Golden and Labrador retrievers there is evidence that limbal melanomas, CAUM and ocular melanosis are at least in part heritable and that the same genetic mutation(s) may be causally associated with melanocytic disease at different ocular sites. The same genetic mutation(s) may be present in these two breeds. Histology should be performed on all cases to identify those with greater malignant potential.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".