Massive hepatocellular carcinoma in dogs: 48 cases (1992–2002)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine clinical signs, diagnostic findings, outcome, and prognostic factors in dogs treated surgically for massive hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and compare survival times of surgically and conservatively treated dogs. DESIGN: Retrospective study. ANIMALS: 48 dogs. PROCEDURE: Medical records were examined for clinical signs, diagnostic and surgical findings, and postoperative outcome. Dogs were allocated into surgery and nonsurgery groups depending on whether curative-intent liver lobectomy was performed. Data from the surgical and nonsurgical groups were analyzed to identify prognostic factors and determine and compare rates of tumor control and survival time. RESULTS: 42 dogs were treated surgically, and 6 were managed conservatively. In the surgery group, intraoperative mortality rate was 4.8% with no local recurrence, metastatic rate was 4.8%, and median survival time was > 1,460 days (range, 1 to 1,460 days). High alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase activities were associated with poor prognosis. Median survival time for the nonsurgery group was 270 days (range, 0 to 415 days), which was significantly less than that of surgically treated dogs. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Liver lobectomy is recommended for dogs with massive HCC because tumor-related mortality rate was 15.4 times higher in dogs in the nonsurgery group, compared with the surgery group. Tumor control was excellent after surgical resection with no local recurrence and a low metastatic rate. Prognostic factors were identified, but their clinical relevance was uncertain because only 9.5% of dogs in the surgery group died as a result of their disease.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".