MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120645781 · doi:10.1638/2010-0236.1

Neoplasia of Captive Yellow Sea Horses (<i>Hippocampus kuda</i>) and Weedy Sea Dragons (<i>Phyllopteryx taeniolatus</i>)

2012· article· en· W2120645781 on OpenAlexaffabout
Véronique LePage, Christopher J. Dutton, Maya Kummrow, David J. McLelland, Karrie Young, John S. Lumsden

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquatic life and conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPathologyZoologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Syngnathidae is the family of fish that includes sea horses, pipefish, and sea dragons. To date, only a single publication has described neoplasia in syngnathids, a fibrosarcoma of the brood pouch in an aquarium-reared lined sea horse (Hippocampus erectus). From 1998 until 2010, the Toronto Zoo submitted 172 syngnathids for postmortem; species included the spotted or yellow sea horse (Hippocampus kuda), the pot-bellied sea horse (Hippocampus abdominalis) and the weedy sea dragon (Phyllopteryx taeniolatus). Seven neoplasms and two neoplastic-like lesions were identified from these cases. Under light microscopy, the neoplasms had morphological characteristics of a cardiac rhabdomyosarcoma, renal adenocarcinoma, renal adenoma, renal round cell tumors, which were likely lymphomas, exocrine pancreatic carcinoma, and intestinal carcinoma. Of these neoplasms, four had clear evidence of metastasis: the pancreatic and intestinal carcinomas and both round cell tumors. As syngnathids are highly fastidious animals, they can be difficult to maintain in captivity. In order to improve their husbandry, preventative and palliative care, as well as treatment, it is important to investigate and document the types of diseases affecting syngnathids.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Zoo and Wildlife MedicineSame topicAquatic life and conservationFrench-language works237,207