MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171953842 · doi:10.2460/javma.228.10.1533

Frequency of and risk factors associated with lingual lesions in dogs: 1,196 cases (1995–2004)

2006· article· en· W2171953842 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Veterinary Medical Association · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVeterinary Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreedMedicineHemangiosarcomaTonguePathologyFibrosarcomaBasal cellGlossitisMacroglossiaMelanomaDermatologyBiologyAngiosarcoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To categorize histologic lesions affecting the tongue, determine the frequency with which they develop, and identify risk factors associated with their development in dogs. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. ANIMALS: 1,196 dogs. PROCEDURES: Diagnostic reports of lingual biopsy specimens from dogs evaluated from January 1995 to October 2004 were reviewed. RESULTS: Neoplasia comprised 54% of lingual lesions. Malignant tumors accounted for 64% of lingual neoplasms and included melanoma, squamous cell carcinoma, hemangiosarcoma, and fibrosarcoma. Large-breed dogs, especially Chow Chows and Chinese Shar-Peis, were at increased risk for melanoma. Females of all breeds and Poodles, Labrador Retrievers, and Samoyeds were more likely to have squamous cell carcinomas. Hemangiosarcomas and fibrosarcomas were commonly diagnosed in Border Collies and Golden Retrievers, respectively. Benign neoplasms included squamous papilloma, plasma cell tumor, and granular cell tumor. Small-breed dogs, especially Cocker Spaniels, were at increased risk for plasma cell tumors. Glossitis accounted for 33% of diagnoses; in most cases, the inciting cause was not apparent. Whereas large-breed dogs were more likely to have lingual neoplasia, small-breed dogs were more likely to have glossitis. Calcinosis circumscripta accounted for 4% of lingual lesions and predominately affected young large-breed dogs. The remaining submissions consisted mostly of various degenerative or wound-associated lesions. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The frequency of lingual lesions was not evenly distributed across breeds, sexes, or size classes of dogs. Veterinarians should be aware of the commonly reported lingual lesions in dogs so that prompt diagnosis and appropriate management can be initiated.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.739

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.313 · 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