MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164503603 · doi:10.1177/104063870601800218

Extraskeletal Osteosarcoma Associated with Retained Surgical Sponge in a Dog

2006· article· en· W2164503603 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Margaret A. Miller, Rhonda L. Aper, Amy E. Fauber, William E. Blevins, José A. Ramos‐Vara

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemostasis and retained surgical items
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGossypibomaLamenessSurgeryGranulomaSoft tissueForeign bodyOsteosarcomaForeign body granulomaAmputationAbdominal cavityPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Retained surgical sponges are usually discovered in the abdominal cavity, sometimes years after the surgical procedure, and the typical reaction is formation of a foreign-body granuloma, often called gossypiboma or textiloma. In this instance, an extraskeletal osteosarcoma, associated with the granulomatous reaction to a retained surgical sponge adjacent to the stifle, was diagnosed in an 11-year-old Labrador Retriever 9 years after repair of a ruptured cranial cruciate ligament. Radiographic detection of linear foreign material in the soft tissue mass was the basis for a diagnosis of gossypiboma. The mass was surgically excised. Histologically, fibers consistent with those of cotton gauze were associated with the granulomatous inflammation and the osteosarcoma. Amputation or radiation therapy was declined; the dog was treated conservatively with doxycycline and deracoxib. Three months after surgical excision, the dog was euthanized because of local recurrence of the mass along with lameness and decreased appetite.

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: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations48
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Diagnostic InvestigationSame topicHemostasis and retained surgical itemsFrench-language works237,207