MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Radiographic lymphangiographyin the dog using iodized oil

2012· article· en· W2156908923 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary and Comparative Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSalivary Gland Tumors Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIodized oilLymphLymphatic systemCervical lymph nodesRadiographyRadiologyAxillary lymph nodesNuclear medicinePathologyMetastasisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to develop a clinically applicable technique to visualize the medial retropharyngeal, superficial cervical, axillary, superficial inguinal and medial iliac lymph nodes on radiographs. Direct and indirect lymphangiographic methods using iodized oil were repeated for a minimum of five times at eight different locations to enhance the various lymph nodes, using 16 healthy research dogs. Direct lymphangiography, although more invasive than indirect lymphangiography, resulted in uniform contrast uptake by an increased number of nodes and increased enhancement of the lymphatic vasculature, and is recommended for imaging the medial iliac and superficial cervical lymph nodes. Side effects were more frequent after indirect lymphangiography (10/20 injection sites) than after direct lymphangiography (3/16 injection sites). The small size of afferent lymphatic vessels did not allow use of direct lymphangiography for the medial retropharyngeal, axillary and superficial inguinal lymph nodes; however, indirect techniques allowed adequate visualization of these nodes.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.210 · 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