MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135271974 · doi:10.1186/2046-0481-60-2-88

Tertiary hypothyroidism in a dog

2007· article· en· W2135271974 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert E. Shiel, Els Acke, Antonella Puggioni, Joseph P. Cassidy, Carmel T. Mooney

Bibliographic record

VenueIrish Veterinary Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLevothyroxineThyroidEndocrinologyPituitary adenomaInternal medicineThyrotropin-releasing hormoneReference rangePituitary tumorsHormoneAdenomaPituitary glandPhysiologyGastroenterologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

: A nine-year-old male entire Labrador was diagnosed with pituitary dependent hyperadrenocorticism. Following seven months of successful mitotane therapy, the dog presented with marked weight gain, seborrhoea and alopecia. Routine clinicopathological analyses revealed marked hypercholesterolaemia. Serum total and free thyroxine (T4) concentrations were below their respective reference ranges. Serum thyroid stimulating hormone (cTSH) concentration was within reference range. TSH and thyrotropin releasing hormone (TRH) response tests revealed adequate stimulation of total T4 in both, and cTSH in the latter test. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed a mass arising from the pituitary fossa, with suprasellar extension. A diagnosis of tertiary hypothyroidism was made. Following four weeks of levothyroxine therapy, circulating cholesterol concentration had declined, weight loss had ensued and dermatological abnormalities had improved. Euthanasia was performed four months later due to the development of neurological signs. A highly infiltrative pituitary adenoma, with effacement of the overlying hypothalamus was identified on post mortem examination. Tertiary hypothyroidism has not been previously reported in dogs.

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 score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations14
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIrish Veterinary JournalSame topicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth FactorsFrench-language works237,207