Agarose cell block technique as a complementary method in the diagnosis of fungal osteomyelitis in a dog
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 7-year-old Labrador Retriever female dog presenting left forelimb lameness for one day was admitted to the Veterinary Hospital (UNESP-Botucatu) for clinical evaluation. Several tests, including blood and image analysis, microbiological culture and cytology of lytic areas of affected bone were made in order to establish a diagnosis. Serum biochemical profile revealed increased levels of liver enzymes, plasma globulin, creatine kinase (CK) and calcium. Hemogram revealed anemia and leukocytosis; left humerus image analysis revealed an osteolytic lesion and cytology revealed a suppurative periostitis. Differential diagnosis was a nonspecific infectious inflammatory process or osteosarcoma. Since it was not possible to achieve a definitive diagnosis and there was a highly suspicious for an infectious agent, an agarose cell block of the bone marrow fine-needle aspiration was made. The cytological examination of cell block presented similar findings as described previously. However, additional stains including periodic acid-Schiff (PAS) were positive for fungal hyphae, which rendered a diagnosis of fungal osteomyelitis due to Aspergillus spp. This case report illustrates an uncommon cause of osteomyelitis for breed that was diagnosed by an underused method in veterinary medicine.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".