Copper-Associated Hepatitis in Labrador Retrievers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Labrador Retrievers with elevated hepatic copper levels have been reported; however, it is unclear whether primary copper-associated hepatitis occurs in this breed. The objective of this study was to determine whether copper-associated hepatitis could be identified in Labradors by reviewing cases from the Diagnostic Center for Population and Animal Health, Michigan State University. Sixteen Labrador Retrievers (3 male, 12 female, and 1 of undetermined sex) between 4 and 11 years old, had multifocal and coalescing, centrilobular hepatitis characterized by macrophages with abundant intracytoplasmic copper and hemosiderin. Other lesions included multifocal, centrilobular and random, pigmented granulomas, hepatocellular necrosis, intrahepatic cholestasis, centrilobular or bridging fibrosis, and occasionally, pseudolobule formation. In rhodanine-stained sections, copper was concentrated in the cytoplasm of centrilobular and midzonal hepatocytes and in macrophages, which is consistent with copper-associated hepatitis. In 12 of the dogs, quantitative liver copper levels were available, and in all but 2 dogs the levels were greater than 2,000 parts per million dry weight (ppm dw). One dog had a liver copper level of 1,990 ppm dw and one dog with advanced hepatic cirrhosis had a level of 1,490 ppm dw. The findings suggest that primary copper-associated hepatitis likely occurs in Labrador Retrievers.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".