Hepatic copper concentrations in Labrador Retrievers with and without chronic hepatitis: 72 cases (1980–2010)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate differences in hepatic copper concentrations in Labrador Retrievers with and without chronic hepatitis. DESIGN: etrospective case-control study. SAMPLE: Liver tissue specimens from 36 Labrador Retrievers with chronic hepatitis and 36 age- and sex-matched Labrador Retrievers without chronic hepatitis (control dogs). PROCEDURES: Liver tissue specimens were obtained during 2 study periods (1980 to 1997 and 1998 to 2010). For each tissue specimen, a histologic score was assigned independently by each of 2 interpreters, and the hepatic copper concentration was qualitatively determined via rhodanine staining and quantitatively determined via atomic absorption spectroscopy. RESULTS: Mean hepatic copper concentration was significantly higher in dogs with chronic hepatitis (614 μg/g of dry weight [range, 104 to 4,234 μg/g of dry weight]), compared with that in control dogs (299 μg/g of dry weight [range, 93 to 3,810 μg/g of dry weight]), and increased significantly over time. A higher proportion of liver tissue specimens collected during the 1998-2010 study period had hepatic copper concentrations > 400 μg/g of dry weight (the upper limit of the reference range), compared with the proportion of liver tissue specimens collected during the 1980-1997 study period. The qualitative copper score did not accurately predict quantitative hepatic copper concentration in 33% of study dogs. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggested that the increase in hepatic copper concentrations in Labrador Retrievers with and without chronic hepatitis over time may be the result of increased exposure of dogs to environmental copper, most likely via the diet.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".