Portal site metastasis of invasive mesothelioma after diagnostic thoracoscopy in a dog
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CASE DESCRIPTION: A 10-year-old Golden Retriever evaluated because of recurrent pericardial and pleural effusion underwent thoracoscopy with biopsy of the pleura and mediastinum. CLINICAL FINDINGS: Before thoracoscopy, 5 L of serosanguinous fluid was removed from the pleural cavity via thoracocentesis. During thoracoscopic exploration, it was observed that the parietal pleura and mediastinum were covered by miliary white to tan nodules 1 to 3 mm in diameter. Biopsy specimens were obtained, and partial pericardiectomy was performed. Portal sites were closed routinely. Cytologic evaluation of the pleural fluid revealed high protein concentration and cellularity, with cellular changes consistent with an exfoliating carcinoma. Results of bacterial culture were negative. TREATMENT AND OUTCOME: Carboplatin was administered via intracavitary instillation, and prednisone was administered orally. Twenty-one days later, 1 firm, irregularly shaped 6.5 x 3-cm mass and 4 smaller masses were detected in the area of the left thoracic wall where the cannula had been inserted during thoracoscopy. Histologic analysis of tissue from the masses collected at necropsy confirmed that they were malignant tumors with similar appearance to the pleural mesothelioma and immunohistochemical staining properties identical to those of the primary tumor. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although thoracoscopy is associated with less postoperative pain, shorter hospitalization times, and faster patient recovery than sternotomy procedures, complications are also possible with minimally invasive endoscopic surgery. Portal site metastasis can develop from contamination of portal sites with cells on instruments or cannulas or via leakage of effusion fluid. Although rare, this potential complication should be discussed with owners prior to performing the procedure.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".