MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145921739 · doi:10.1177/0300985810383873

Paranasal Sinus Masses of Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep ( <i>Ovis canadensis canadensis</i> )

2010· article· en· W2145921739 on OpenAlexaff
Keith A.A. Fox, Sarah K. Wootton, Sandra L. Quackenbush, Lisa L. Wolfe, Ivy K. LeVan, Michael W. Miller, Terry R. Spraker

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary Pathology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicInfectious Diseases and Mycology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvis canadensisPathologySubmucosaSinus (botany)Paranasal sinusesAnatomyHyperplasiaBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes 10 cases of paranasal sinus masses in Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis canadensis). Among 21 bighorns that were examined from 11 herds in Colorado, 10 individuals (48%) from 4 herds (36%) had masses arising from the paranasal sinuses. Affected animals included 9 of 17 females (53%) and 1 of 4 males (25%), ranging in age from approximately 2 years to greater than 10 years. Defining gross features of these masses included unilateral or bilateral diffuse thickening of the respiratory lining of the maxillary and/or frontal sinuses, with abundant seromucinous exudate in the affected sinus cavities. Defining histologic features of these masses included chronic inflammation and proliferation of mesenchymal and epithelial cells of the mucosa and submucosa. Epithelial changes included hyperplasia of mucosal epithelium, hyperplasia of submucosal glands and ducts, and neoplasia (adenocarcinoma). Mesenchymal changes included submucosal myxedema, submucosal fibroplasia/fibrosis, bone destruction, and neoplasia (myxomatous fibroma). Specific immunohistochemistry and polymerase chain reaction for Jaagsiekte sheep retrovirus and enzootic nasal tumor virus were performed with negative results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVeterinary PathologySame topicInfectious Diseases and MycologyFrench-language works237,207