Radiographic lymphangiographyin the dog using iodized oil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".