MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Immunohistochemical evaluation of mononuclear infiltrates in canine lupoid onychodystrophy

2002· article· en· W2171083099 on OpenAlexaff
Ralf S. Mueller, K. West, S. V. Bettenay

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary Dermatology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVeterinary Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBone decalcificationImmunostainingPathologyMedicineImmunohistochemistryCD3ImmunoperoxidasePeripheral blood mononuclear cellAntibodyImmunologyMonoclonal antibodyChemistryAntigenCD8

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to characterize the immunophenotype of the inflammatory infiltrate in canine lupoid onychodystrophy and to determine if decalcification interferes with immunoreactivity. Claw biopsies of 14 dogs with lupoid onychodystrophy were stained with CD3, BLA36 and HM57 (CD97α), MAC 387, lysozyme and MHC class II using an immunoperoxidase and avidin/biotin technique. Cells infiltrating the claw matrix were counted in two high‐power fields; numbers were expressed as a percentage of the cellular infiltrate. The inflammatory infiltrate consisted predominantly of B and T cells; macrophages were typically only present in small numbers. There was no correlation between the predominant inflammatory cell and clinical parameters. CD3, BLA36, lysozyme and MHC II preserved significant antigenicity during formalin fixation and short decalcification, while staining for CD79A and particularly MAC 387 was less reliable. Prolonged decalcification of 7–14 days abolished immunostaining with all antibodies. Short decalcification periods allow immunostaining of samples with some antibodies (CD3, BLA36, lysozyme, MHC II), but not others (CD79A, MAC387), while prolonged decalcification prohibits immunostaining. The nature of the mononuclear infiltrate in lupoid onychodystrophy is not helpful clinically. This study was funded by the American Academy of Veterinary Dermatology.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVeterinary DermatologySame topicVeterinary Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207