Multicenter case-control study of risk factors associated with development of vaccine-associated sarcomas in cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether particular vaccine brands, other injectable medications, customary vaccination practices, or various host factors were associated with the formation of vaccine-associated sarcomas in cats. DESIGN: Prospective multicenter case-control study. ANIMALS: Cats in the United States and Canada with soft tissue sarcomas or basal cell tumors. PROCEDURE: Veterinarians submitting biopsy specimens from cats with a confirmed diagnosis of soft tissue sarcoma or basal cell tumor were contacted for patient medical history. Time window statistical analyses were used in conjunction with various assumptions about case definitions. RESULTS: No single vaccine brand or manufacturer within antigen class was found to be associated with sarcoma formation. Factors related to vaccine administration were also not associated with sarcoma development, with the possible exception of vaccine temperature prior to injection. Two injectable medications (long-acting penicillin and methyl prednisolone acetate) were administered to case cats more frequently than to control cats. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Findings do not support the hypotheses that specific brands or types of vaccine within antigen class, vaccine practices such as reuse of syringes, concomitant viral infection, history of trauma, or residence either increase or decrease the risk of vaccine-associated sarcoma formation in cats. There was evidence to suggest that certain long-acting injectable medications may also be associated with sarcoma formation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".